nuclear-news

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

Space Tech Is How Israel Targets Doctors’ & Journalists’ Homes For Bombing

The U.S. and Israel have been blocking a space weapons ban treaty (PAROS) at the United Nations for more than 25 years………. Space technology is playing a major role in the Gaza genocide.

The current wars in both Ukraine and Gaza are experimental laboratories for arms developers and showcases for their products

Resistance to building a rocket launch site in Maine

Lisa Savage, Oct 26, 2024,  https://went2thebridge.substack.com/p/space-tech-is-how-israel-targets?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1580975&post_id=150711847&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=c9zhh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

I hustled down to the Maine Space Conference yesterday morning in time to meet with a tv reporter but alas her story seems to have fallen by the wayside (if I find it later I’ll edit to include it.) I told her satellite technology is what enables Israel to target residential buildings where they know doctors and journalists live.

Similarly, an interview of Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space by a reporter from Space News is nowhere to be found this morning. Or as Jonathan Cook put it, “Israel kills the journalists, Western media kills the truth.”

If you search for Maine Space Conference you’ll find plenty of adulatory articles about how exciting the space industry is and how each step toward turning our beautiful state into a militarized rocket launch site is to be applauded. 

Folks in Kodiak, Alaska who had this experience continue to suffer the consequences. Though their launch site was built with assurances that all uses would be civilian in nature, that turned out to be a huge lie as even the Israeli military uses the launch site in Kodiak.

A recent report from a local resident highlights the pollution risks of hosting launch sites:

the Alaska DEC is keeping on top of a rocket fuel spill accident at the Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska that happened the end of July. ABL Space was suppose to launch a rocket back in January and for 6 months all ABL did was ‘testing’ on the launch pad, no launch and closing off the state road to the public off and on during that time.

The end of July the rocket was setting on the pad for engine testing once again when the engine caught on fire, tipping the rocket over and spilled 1,800 gallons of fuel on the pad and surrounding soil. The soil is now in the process of being dug up, stored and covered until it can be shipped off island to a land fill in Washington state.

There was a Astra Space rocket accident last year and it took 6 months to dig up all the contaminated soil and ship it off island, which took until December. Rocket fuel also seeped into the ground water.

Yesterday in Maine we heard from Gagnon during the protest:

The Maine Space Conference is promoting the militarization of space. Efforts are being made to test hypersonic missiles at the former Loring Air Force Base. bluShit Aerospace is receiving funding from the U.S. Air Force and Space Force to launch ‘dual use’ (military/civilian) mini-satellites into dangerously congested Lower Earth Orbit.

Promises of lots of jobs, little to no environmental impacts, and peaceful exploration of space are the standard claims made at a myriad of potential sites the U.S. military is exploring around the world.

The U.S. and Israel have been blocking a space weapons ban treaty (PAROS) at the United Nations for more than 25 years.

Our nation cannot afford to pay for a new expensive arms race in outer space.

And we heard from Mary Beth Sullivan specifically about current wars that already depend on space-based technology: 

Space technology is playing a major role in the Gaza genocide.

The current wars in both Ukraine and Gaza are experimental laboratories for arms developers and showcases for their products

Space is now an essential technical area being used in war fighting

Space is now an essential technical area being used in war fighting

BY FAR: the US is biggest spender on space programs, and the US launches more objects into space than any other nation

SpaceX developed the Starlight Satellite constellations to bring the internet and broadband to the world to connect us all to the internet, right? A commercial product to benefit the masses, right?

Did you know that SpaceX’s Starlink satellites are used by Israel in its genocide against Gaza, and its bombing campaign against Lebanon?  It’s a primary enabler of the use of drones.

Militaries have developed a dependency on space systems to coordinate, command, and control activity at all levels over wide areas.

Israel also has it’s own space launch capability, and its own military satellites which are part of what’s called the Eros NG constellation. One of the most powerful intelligence collection systems in the world. They have satellites in constant orbit downloading info.

 GPS Jamming by Israel being used in Gaza and Lebanon.              

Also, the US and the UK use spy plane flights for Israel to aid in surveillance, facilitate propaganda, and much more

Australia has a spy base in Pine Gap which is downloading info from Gaza. Pine Gap sends the info to the US’s National Security Agency, who then sends to Israel. This clearly implicates Australia –  and the US — in Israel’s genocide.

Same can be said for a spy base called Menwith Hill in the UK.

Reports show that Artificial Intelligence is enabling decision-making systems in Israel against the people of Palestine. Programs called Gospel, Lavender, and Where’s Daddy are trained to recognize features of people who might be affiliated with Hamas. The program tracks individuals and groups.

Techniques using AI and message interception are joined together.

Many nations in the region are developing their own space technology.

There have been no physical attack on a satellite as yet in this war but, if such an attack happens, new replacement satellites will need to be launched quickly.  To that end, the US is operationalizing a “rapid response.”

 For more information on resistance to the construction of a launch site in Maine visit NoToxicRockets4ME.org.

October 26, 2024 Posted by | Israel, space travel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Mission Innovation should not send tax-payer money to Bill Gates’ nuclear dream

We cannot trust billionaire philanthropists to lead the way on climate action, Online Opinion, By Noel Wauchope , 16 December 2015  “…….At the opening of the Paris Climate Summit (COP21), with the blessing of the White House, Bill Gates announced the Breakthrough Energy Coalition (BEA), with an ambitious goal to deal with climate change. 24 billionaire philanthropists have joined in the BEA. They include Richard Branson, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos.

Simultaneously 19 governments, including the United States, China and India, announce “Mission Innovation”, a project that will involve tax-payer money to explore and invent new ways to develop low carbon energy.

Not surprisingly, the two organisations will work in tandem. The billionaire philanthropists plan a public-private partnership between governments, research institutions, and investors that will focus on new energy methods especially for developing countries……

For a start, this twin project is directed at researching new forms of low carbon energy. A lot of money therefore is to go into trying out new plans, that exist at best, only in blueprint form. Yet already there are in operation large scale and small scale renewable energy projects that could be deployed. In particular, small scale solar energy is very well suited to being deployed in rural India, Africa, and other developing nations, as well as in Australia and other developed nations. It is happening now. Projects such as Barefoot Power have operated for years now, bringing affordable solar power to millions of rural poor in Africa, Asia Pacific, India and the Americas.

The energy need now for poor countries is deployment of existing technologies, not years of research and testing of so far non-existent ones………

  • The one and only University that has joined BEA is the University of California, which runs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, well known for its nuclear research.
  • Bill Gates is co-founder and current Chairman of the innovative nuclear energy company TerraPower Gates has a long term history of enthusiasm for small nuclear power reactors. Since the Fukushima nuclear disaster, USA’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission has tightened the rules for new reactors. Fortunately for Mr Gates, China is less fussy about this, so Gates has been able to do a deal with the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC). TerraPower and CNNC will build the first small 600 MW unit in China, and later deploy these nuclear reactors globally.

Gates and Branson

I don’t doubt that Bill Gates is sincere in his goal of reducing greenhouse gases. It’s just that I have reservations about Small Nuclear Reactors having any impact on global warming.

If Small Nuclear Reactors did in fact reduce greenhouse gases, the world would need thousands of them to be up and running quickly, but they’re still at the planning stage. They’re supposed to be much safer than conventional nuclear reactors, but still produce radioactive wastes, and are targets for terrorism. Each and every one of them would need 24 hour guarding. It gets expensive………

The term selected “Breakthrough Energy Initiative” gives the game away. For many years now, America’s Breakthrough Institute has lobbied and publicised “new nuclear” as the solution for climate change. The Breakthrough Institute has many well-meaning and enthusiastic environmentalists as members. Its philosophy, expressed in “The Ecomodernist Manifesto” is full of beautiful motherhood statements about climate and environment, and only a few paragraphs about new nuclear technology.

This Manifesto, by the way, appears as a Submission to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.

The effect of the Breakthrough Institute, over the years, has been to slow down action on reducing the use of fossil fuels. It has also aimed to discredit renewable energy……..http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17899

October 25, 2024 Posted by | technology, USA | Leave a comment

Mini-Nukes, Big Bucks: The Interests Behind the SMR Push

The “billionaires’ nuclear club”

The 2015 Paris climate talks featured what cleantechnica.com called a “splashy press conference” by Bill Gates to announce the launch of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition (BEC) – a group of (originally) 28 high net-worth investors, aiming “to provide early-stage capital for technologies that offer promise in bringing affordable clean energy to billions.”

Though BEC no longer makes its membership public, the original coalition included such familiar names as Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Marc Benioff (Salesforce), Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, Jack Ma (Alibaba), David Rubenstein (Carlyle Group), Tom Steyer, George Soros, and Mark Zuckerberg. Many of those names (and others) can now be found on the “Board and Investors” page of Breakthrough Energy’s website.

Why Canada is now poised to pour billions of tax dollars into developing Small Modular Reactors as a “clean energy” climate solution

by Joyce Nelson, January 14, 2021, story. Mini-Nukes, Big Bucks: The Interests Behind the SMR Push | Watershed Sentinel

Back in 2018, the Watershed Sentinel ran an article warning that “unless Canadians speak out,” a huge amount of taxpayer dollars would be spent on small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), which author D. S. Geary called “risky, retro, uncompetitive, expensive, and completely unnecessary.” Now here we are in 2021 with the Trudeau government and four provinces (Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Alberta) poised to pour billions of dollars into SMRs as a supposed “clean energy” solution to climate change.

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.

The Carney factor

When the first three provinces jumped on the SMR bandwagon in 2019 at an estimated price tag of $27 billion, the Green Party called the plan “absurd” – especially noting that SMRs don’t even exist yet as viable technologies but only as designs on paper.

According to the BBC (March 9, 2020), some of the biggest names in the nuclear industry gave up on SMRs for various reasons: Babcock & Wilcox in 2017, Transatomic Power in 2018, and Westinghouse (after a decade of work on its project) in 2014.

But in 2018, the private equity arm of Canada’s Brookfield Asset Management Inc. announced that it was buying Westinghouse’s global nuclear business (Westinghouse Electric Co.) for $4.6 billion.

“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?”

Two years later, in August 2020, Brookfield announced that Mark Carney, former Bank of England and Bank of Canada governor, would be joining the company as its vice-chair and head of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) and impact fund investing, while remaining as UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.

“We are not going to solve climate change without the private sector,” Carney told the press, calling the climate crisis “one of the greatest commercial opportunities of our time.” He considers Canada “an energy superpower,” with nuclear a key asset.

Carney is an informal advisor to PM Trudeau and to British PM Boris Johnson. In November, Johnson announced £525 million (CAD$909.6 million) for “large and small-scale nuclear plants.”

SNC-Lavalin

Scandal-ridden SNC-Lavalin is playing a major role in the push for SMRs. In her mid-December 2020 newsletter, Elizabeth May, the Parliamentary Leader of the Green Party, focused on SNC-Lavalin, reminding readers that in 2015, then-PM Stephen Harper sold the commercial reactor division of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) “to SNC-Lavalin for the sweetheart deal price of $15 million.”

May explained, “SNC-Lavalin formed a consortium called the Canadian National Energy Alliance (CNEA) to run some of the broken-apart bits of AECL. CNEA has been the big booster of what sounds like some sort of warm and cuddly version of nuclear energy – Small Modular Reactors. Do not be fooled. Not only do we not need new nuclear, not only does it have the same risks as previous nuclear reactors and creates long-lived nuclear wastes, it is more tied to the U.S. military-industrial complex than ever before. That’s because SNC-Lavalin’s partners in the CNEA are US companies Fluor and Jacobs,” who both have contracts with US Department of Energy nuclear-weapons facilities.”

But, states May, “Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan has been sucked into the latest nuclear propaganda – that ‘there is no pathway to Net Zero [carbon emissions] without nuclear’.”

Terrestrial Energy

Then there’s Terrestrial Energy, which in mid-October 2020 received a $20 million grant for SMR development from NRCan’s O’Regan and Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry). The announcement prompted more than 30 Canadian NGOs to call SMRs “dirty, dangerous, and distracting” from real, available solutions to climate change.

The Connecticut-based company has a subsidiary in Oakville, Ontario. Its advisory board includes Stephen Harper; Michael Binder, the former president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; and (as of October) Dr. Ian Duncan, the former UK Minister of Climate Change in the Dept. of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).

Perhaps more important, 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, calling them “game-changing technologies” at “half the construction cost of today’s reactors.”

In 2015, while the COP 21 Paris Climate Agreement was being finalized, Moniz told reporters that SMRs could lead to “better financing terms” than traditional nuclear plants because they would change the scale of capital at risk. For years, banks and financial institutions have been reluctant to invest in money-losing nuclear projects, so now the goal is to get governments to invest, especially in SMRs.

That has been the agenda of a powerful lobby group that has been working closely with NRCan for several years.

The “billionaires’ nuclear club”

The 2015 Paris climate talks featured what cleantechnica.com called a “splashy press conference” by Bill Gates to announce the launch of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition (BEC) – a group of (originally) 28 high net-worth investors, aiming “to provide early-stage capital for technologies that offer promise in bringing affordable clean energy to billions.”


Though BEC no longer makes its membership public, the original coalition included such familiar names as Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Marc Benioff (Salesforce), Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, Jack Ma (Alibaba), David Rubenstein (Carlyle Group), Tom Steyer, George Soros, and Mark Zuckerberg. Many of those names (and others) can now be found on the “Board and Investors” page of Breakthrough Energy’s website.

“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.”

Writing in Counterpunch (Dec. 4, 2015) shortly after  BEC’s launch, Linda Pentz Gunter noted that many of those 28 BEC billionaires (collectively worth some $350 billion at the time) are pro-nuclear and Gates himself “is already squandering part of his wealth on Terra Power LLC, a nuclear design and engineering company seeking an elusive, expensive and futile so-called Generation IV traveling wave reactor” for SMRs. (In 2016, Terra Power, based in Bellevue, Washington, received a $40 million grant from Ernest Moniz’s Department of Energy.)

According to cleantechnica.com, the Breakthrough Energy Coalition “does have a particular focus on nuclear energy.” Think of BEC as the billionaires’ nuclear club.

By 2017, BEC was launching Breakthrough Energy Ventures (BEV), a $1 billion fund to provide start-up capital to clean-tech companies in several countries.

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. Mission Innovation’s key private sector partners include the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, the World Economic Forum, the International Energy Agency, and the World Bank.

An employee at Natural Resources Canada, Amanda Wilson, was appointed as one of the 12 international members of the Mission Innovation Steering Committee.

In December 2017, Bill Gates announced that the Breakthrough Energy Coalition was partnering with Mission Innovation members Canada, UK, France, Mexico, and the European Commission in a “public-private collaboration” to “double public investment in clean energy innovation.”

Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources at the time, Jim Carr, said the partnership with BEC “will greatly benefit the environment and the economy. Working side by side with innovators like Bill Gates can only serve to enhance our purpose and inspire others.”

Dr. M.V. Ramana, an expert on nuclear energy and a professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at UBC, told me by email: “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.”

Dr. Ramana explained that because SMRs only exist on paper, “the scale of investment needed to move these paper designs to a level of detail that would satisfy any reasonable nuclear safety regulator that the design is safe” would be in the billions of dollars. “I don’t see Gates and others being willing to invest anything of that scale. Instead, they invest a relatively small amount of money (compared to what they are worth financially) and then ask for government handouts for the vast majority of the investment that is needed.”

Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist at Beyond Nuclear, told me by email that the companies involved in SMRs “don’t care” if the technology is actually workable, “so long as they get paid more subsidies from the unsuspecting public. It’s not a question of it working, necessarily,” he noted.

Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, says 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?”

“Roadmap” to a NICE future

By 2018, NRCan was pouring money into a 10-month, pan-Canadian “conversation” about SMRs that brought together some 180 individuals from First Nations and northern communities, provincial and territorial governments, industry, utilities, and “stakeholders.” The resulting November 2018 report, A Call to Action: A Canadian Roadmap for Small Modular Reactors, enthusiastically noted that “Canada’s nuclear industry is poised to be a leader in an emerging global market estimated at $150 billion a year by 2040.”

At the same time, Bill Gates announced the launch of Breakthrough Energy Europe, a collaboration with the European Commission (one of BEC’s five Mission Innovation partners) in the amount of 100 million euros for clean-tech innovation.

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.

NRCan’s SMR Roadmap was just in time for Canada’s hosting of the Clean Energy Ministerial/Mission Innovation summit in Vancouver in May 2019 to “accelerate progress toward a clean energy future.” Canada invested $30 million in Breakthrough Energy Solutions Canada to fund start-up companies.

A particular focus of the CEM/MI summit was a CEM initiative called “Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy (NICE) Future,” with all participants receiving a book highlighting SMRs. As Tanya Glafanheim and M.V. Ramana warned in thetyee.ca (May 27, 2019) in advance of the summit, “Note to Ministers from 25 countries: Prepare to be dangerously greenwashed.”

Greenwash vs public backlash

While releasing the federal SMR Action Plan on December 18, O’Regan called it “the next great opportunity for Canada.”

Bizarrely, the Action Plan states that by developing SMRs, our governments would be “supporting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples” – but a Special Chiefs Assembly of the Assembly of First Nations passed a unanimous 2018 resolution demanding that “the Government of Canada cease funding and support” of SMRs. And in June 2019, the Anishinabek Chiefs-in-Assembly (representing 40 First Nations across Ontario) unanimously opposed “any effort to situate SMRs within our territory.”

Some 70 NGOs across Canada are opposed to SMRs, which are being pushed as a replacement for diesel in remote communities, for use in off-grid mining, tar-sands development, and heavy industry, and as exportable expertise in a global market.

Whether SMRs work or not, Mission Innovation members will be throwing tax-dollars at them like there is no tomorrow.

On December 7, the Hill Times published an open letter to the Treasury Board of Canada from more than 100 women leaders across Canada, stating: “We urge you to say ‘no’ to the nuclear industry that is asking for billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to subsidize a dangerous, highly-polluting and expensive technology that we don’t need. Instead, put more money into renewables, energy efficiency and energy conservation.”

No new money for SMRs was announced in the Action Plan, but in her Fall Economic Statement, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland touted SMRs and noted that “targeted action by the government to mobilize private capital will better position Canadian firms to bring their technologies to market.” That suggests the Canada Infrastructure Bank will use its $35 billion for such projects.

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.

Award-winning author Joyce Nelson’s latest book, Bypassing Dystopia, is published by Watershed Sentinel Books. She can be reached via www.joycenelson.ca.

October 24, 2024 Posted by | Canada, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Three Mile Island nuclear plant gears up for Big Tech reboot

Reuters, By Laila Kearney, October 23, 2024

Summary

Companies

Activists say they will challenge licensing for the plant

Restart work is expected to begin in Q1 2025

Constellation has ordered major equipment

Microsoft would consider similar contracts to restart nuclear power plants

Work includes refurbishing cooling towers and millions of feet of scaffolding

THREE MILE ISLAND, Pennsylvania, Oct 22 (Reuters) – Giant cooling towers at Constellation Energy’s (CEG.O), opens new tab Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania have sat dormant for so long that grass has sprung up in the towers’ hollowed-out bases and wildlife roam inside.

Armed guard stations at an entrance to the shut concrete facility, surrounded by barbed wire, sit empty. The plant, which would run so loud when operating that workers were required to wear hearing protection, is nearly silent.

“It’s still eerie walking in here and it’s, just, quiet,” Constellation regulatory assurance manager Craig Smith said during a tour of the plant last week. Smith, who worked at Three Mile Island when Constellation shut the site’s remaining reactor in 2019, is now preparing for a restart.

Constellation announced last month that it would revive the half-century-old Three Mile Island with the purpose of fueling Microsoft’s (MSFT.O), opens new tab data centers. Microsoft is expected to pay at least $100 a megawatt-hour, nearly double the typical cost of renewable energy in the region, as part of the 20-year power contract.

The agreement shows the dramatic lengths Big Tech is willing to go to procure electricity for its artificial intelligence expansion and the undertaking by the U.S. power industry to meet that demand.

The effort to restore Unit 1 at Three Mile Island is expected to take four years, at least $1.6 billion, and thousands of workers to complete the unprecedented task of restarting a retired nuclear plant.

Constellation has already ordered costly equipment for the site and identified fuel for the unit’s reactor core, with work expected to start early next year, according to Reuters’ interviews with company executives, contractors and a tour of the site.

Successfully resurrecting Three Mile Island, which is widely known for a 1979 partial meltdown that cast a pall over the U.S. nuclear sector for decades, would put the plant at the front edge of an industry revival…………………………………………………..

A restart of the plant, however, is not certain. Three Mile Island, which will be renamed the Crane Clean Energy Complex, still requires licensing modifications and permitting. Local activists have also vowed to fight the project over safety and environmental concerns.

If the plan suffers the same lengthy delays and cost overruns that have plagued nearly every nuclear build in the country’s history, it could stymie other deals and set back Big Tech’s quest to rapidly expand, power experts say.

………………………………………………………………..The company has commissioned the fuel design for the reactor’s core, said Constellation Chief Generation Officer Bryan Hanson. The core holds the enriched uranium, the fuel source for the plant, stacked in pellets and sealed in tubes.

Constellation, which is the biggest U.S. operator of nuclear plants, will tap into fuel from its existing enriched uranium reserves as one of the final steps before starting up.

………………………………………………Not everyone is enthused about the prospect of a nuclear comeback. The power plants produce waste that can remain radioactive for thousands of years.

About a tennis court-size amount of spent nuclear fuel from Unit 1 is stored on Three Mile Island, which sits on a strip of land in the Susquehanna River. The decommissioning of Unit 2 is still underway about 45 years after the partial meltdown.

Local activist Eric Epstein, who remembers the March 1979 incident, said he will fight Constellation’s request to resume operating and water use licenses.

“It’s going to be a protracted battle,” Epstein said.

The first chance for the challenges comes on Oct. 25, when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled its initial public hearing on Constellation’s plan to restart Unit 1.
Reporting by Laila Kearney Editing by Marguerita Choy
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/three-mile-island-nuclear-plant-gears-up-big-tech-reboot-2024-10-22/

October 24, 2024 Posted by | technology, USA | Leave a comment

Is it worse to have no climate solutions – or to have them but refuse to use them?

Rebecca Solnit, 16 Oct 2024 ,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/16/climate-crisis-technology-ai

Tech barons are forever predicting some amazing new technology to fix the climate crisis. Yet fixes already exist.

When it comes to some of the tech oligarchs, I suspect the sheer modesty of the solutions is not the kind of gee-whiz rocket science they love.’

There are so many ways to fiddle while Rome burns, or as this season’s weather would have it, gets torn apart by hurricanes and tornadoes and also goes underwater – and, in other places, burns. One particularly pernicious way comes from the men in love with big tech, who are forever insisting that we need some amazing new technology to solve our problems, be it geoengineering, carbon sequestration or fusion – but wait, it gets worse.

At an artificial intelligence conference in Washington DC, the former Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently claimed that “[w]e’re not going to hit the climate goals anyway because we’re not organized to do it” and that we should just plunge ahead with AI, which is so huge an energy hog it’s prompted a number of tech companies to abandon their climate goals. Schmidt then threw out the farfetched notion that we should go all in on AI because maybe AI will somehow, maybe, eventually know how to “solve” climate, saying: “I’d rather bet on AI solving the problem than constraining it.”

Eventually is not good enough. A distinguished group of scientists said in a paper published on 8 October: “We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled. We are stepping into a critical and unpredictable new phase of the climate crisis.”

We need to pull back from that brink, but Schmidt is arguing for plunging over it, because guys like him are excited about AI. This is like arguing we should jettison the lifeboats and hang out on the sinking ship because what if there was eventually a totally awesome, new kind of lifeboat we can’t even imagine right now?

We have the lifeboats now – we have the solutions, and we have had them for a while, and they keep getting better, as in better-designed, more efficient, more affordable and adaptable. We just need to implement them, but they’re just not the solutions a lot of the rich and powerful like. Proposing we go for some false or nonexistent solution has become an excuse constantly deployed as an excuse for not supporting the solutions we have.

Delay is the new denial” became a slogan in the climate movement a few years ago, and maybe “decoy is the new denial” should be added to it, by which I mean proposing we ignore workable present-day solutions in favor of unworkable and nonexistent ones while continuing to burn fossil fuel.

One might think that Schmidt, whose net worth is estimated at around $23bn, would devote some time and resources to organizing us to reach our climate goals rather than excuse himself from acting with his dismissive defeatism. But overall billionaires and the very rich are part of the problem, with their outsized power and the dismal ways most of them use it. And their climate impact is obscene – the richest 1% of humanity is responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%.

Scientists and engineers have been telling us for a very long time what we need to do and how to do it, and most of us already know that what we need to do is make a swift transition away from burning fossil fuels. Protecting forests and other natural systems and redesigning how we live, travel and produce and consume also matter, but phasing out the extraction and burning of fossil fuels is the big one. Schmidt lives in California, where we’ve been getting more than 100% of our electricity needs met many days this year by sun, wind and water, and storing the surplus in immense battery systems. Obviously not everything in California runs on electricity, but this is a nice demonstration model of how rapidly a renewable system can scale up.

When it comes to some of the tech oligarchs, I suspect the sheer modesty of the solutions – that we should consume less, which means we can produce less, and make this energy transition to a renewable-powered world – is not the kind of gee-whiz rocket science they love. (Though solar and wind technologies are pretty amazing, particularly if you know how rapidly their design has improved, their cost has plummeted and their implementation has spread.) It is in many ways a social solution in which lots of us adjust how we live and how we power our devices, not a grand centralized invention that is super profitable for a few.

I do not know if it would be worse to live in a world in which we genuinely did not have the solutions, or to live in one where we have them but are not implementing them on the speed and scale we know we need to. But I know we have the solutions.

  • Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. She is the author of Orwell’s Roses and co-editor with Thelma Young Lutunatabua of the climate anthology Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility

October 20, 2024 Posted by | climate change, technology | Leave a comment

Amazon bets on nuclear power to fuel AI ambitions

The technology is still in its infancy and lacks regulatory approval, however, raising doubts about implementation timelines.

Daily Mail By Afp, 17 October 2024

Amazon announced significant investments in nuclear energy on Wednesday, joining other tech giants in aiming to meet the high electric power demands of artificial intelligence using atomic energy.

As companies including Microsoft, Amazon, and Google rapidly expand their global data center capabilities, they are actively seeking new electricity sources.

Amazon has signed three agreements to support the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which are more compact and potentially easier to deploy than traditional reactors.

The technology is still in its infancy and lacks regulatory approval, however, raising doubts about implementation timelines……………………

According to an Amazon spokeswoman, the contracts signed are worth over half a billion dollars.

Amazon’s new partnerships include collaborating with Energy Northwest to develop four advanced SMRs in Washington state, potentially generating up to 960 megawatts of power by the early 2030s.

The company is also taking part in a $500 million funding round in X-energy, a leading SMR developer, to support more than five gigawatts of new nuclear-energy projects.

Additionally, Amazon is teaming up with Dominion Energy to explore an SMR project near Virginia’s North Anna nuclear power station, aiming to add at least 300 MW of power to meet projected demand increases…………………

Google recently signed a deal with Kairos Power for SMR-generated electricity, while Microsoft plans to use power from the restarted Three Mile Island facility.

Amazon has also announced plans to locate a major data center next to a 40-year-old nuclear facility in Pennsylvania.

According to Goldman Sachs, data center power demand is estimated to grow 160 percent by 2030, with AI representing about 19 percent of data center power demand by 2028.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-13967077/Amazon-bets-nuclear-power-fuel-AI-ambitions.html

October 19, 2024 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

To make nuclear fusion a reliable energy source one day, scientists will first need to design heat- and radiation-resilient materials

Fusion energy has the potential to be an effective clean energy source, as its reactions
generate incredibly large amounts of energy. Fusion reactors aim to
reproduce on Earth what happens in the core of the Sun, where very light
elements merge and release energy in the process. Engineers can harness
this energy to heat water and generate electricity through a steam turbine,
but the path to fusion isn’t completely straightforward.

Controlled nuclear fusion has several advantages over other power sources for
generating electricity. For one, the fusion reaction itself doesn’t
produce any carbon dioxide. There is no risk of meltdown, and the reaction
doesn’t generate any long-lived radioactive waste. I’m a nuclear
engineer who studies materials that scientists could use in fusion
reactors.

Fusion takes place at incredibly high temperatures. So to one day
make fusion a feasible energy source, reactors will need to be built with
materials that can survive the heat and irradiation generated by fusion
reactions.

The Conversation 18th Oct 2024 https://theconversation.com/to-make-nuclear-fusion-a-reliable-energy-source-one-day-scientists-will-first-need-to-design-heat-and-radiation-resilient-materials-238489

October 19, 2024 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

Small nuclear reactors won’t be ready in time for the needs of energy-guzzling needs of Artificial Intelligence.

As of last month, when [data centres] were classed as critical national
infrastructure, data centres are on a par with utilities, meaning the
government would step in were there a risk to connectivity. Nonetheless, as
Rohan Kelkar, the executive vice-president of power products at Schneider
Electric, puts it, the “lack of grid capacity puts UK’s AI and data
centre ambitions and energy transition goals at risk”.

So much so that we have seen the boroughs of Hillingdon, Ealing and Hounslow all rejecting
data centre projects in order to retain supply for housing. This is far
from a UK-specific issue. In Ireland, the pressure on the national grid
from computing needs is so acute they have had to pause some data centre
approvals over concerns that excessive demand from data centres could lead
to blackouts.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Big Tech companies are
also grappling with the energy conundrum: how to find low-carbon, reliable
sources of power for their power-hungry warehouses without jeopardising
customer needs or their net zero goals. Along with renewable energy and
improving battery storage, right now they all seem to be turning in one
direction: towards nuclear power. Microsoft signed a deal last month to
help resurrect a unit of the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.
Amazon bought a nuclear-powered data centre earlier in the year. On Monday,
Google became the latest to announce a nuclear energy deal to meet the
needs of its data centres, looking at mini reactors developed by a
Californian company.

A cocktail of technological innovation means this
could happen in the UK, too. Rolls-Royce, the engineer, is at the forefront
of developing mini reactors and is already having conversations with
operators in the UK about their use. While mini nukes would not have been
commercially viable in the past, now that demand for data centres has
jumped exponentially, their potential use has become more feasible. Another
key component in the future marriage of computing and nuclear power is that
data centres are becoming less location driven because of improvements in
latency, the time it takes for data to travel from one point to another.


The immediate problem with the introduction of small nuclear reactors?
Rolls-Royce estimates that they remain a decade or more away, with none
currently operating and generating electricity in the UK. In the meantime,
connection to the “constrained” grid, remains all-important headache
for those looking to build data centres.

 Times 16th Oct 2024

https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/technology/article/nuclear-powered-data-centres-looking-to-become-cost-effective-qpgskj8xv

October 18, 2024 Posted by | ENERGY, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

TODAY. Media enthusiasm for dodgy “cutting edge Lego-like micro-nuclear power plants” , (but doubts creep in).

modules assembled “like a LEGO kit” and designed to be fabricated, transported, and assembled within 24 months”

BUT -“the tech is still in the early stages and faces a myriad of hurdles.”

“has yet to obtain licensing and planning approvals“

“How the new fleet of SMRs will be funded has yet to be established. The technology is not yet generating power anywhere in the world”

I am fascinated with the way that the media continues to obediently trot out the official dogma that small nuclear reactors are the new great white hope – for everything – jobs, reduce carbon emissions, revitalise the economy, cheap, clean, plentiful energy, – blah blah. The interesting thing is that, in the midst of their enthusiasm, some respectable news outlets occasionally now slip in a little bit of doubt.

A couple of examples of doubt from the UK.:

Guy Taylor, Transport and Infrastructure Correspondent at City A.M. enthuses over a “hotly anticipated tender“ surrounding the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMR)’s in the UK. A micro reactor project in Wales will bring  energy for 244,000 UK homes – “will pump around £30m into the local economy”.

But he also mentions that  “the tech is still in the early stages and faces a myriad of hurdles.”

  Ian Weinfass, in Construction News gives a positive, optimistic, story on this micro nuclear reactor development, but clearly states that the company (Last Energy) “has yet to obtain licensing and planning approvals for its technology.“ He tellingly concludes “How the new fleet of SMRs will be funded has yet to be established. The technology is not yet generating power anywhere in the world”

However, don’t fret, little nuclear rent-seekers! Most of the media is still obedient, and they know which side their bread is buttered on . Sion Barry, writing in Wales Online, describes the same “24/7 clean energy” project as “of national significance“. There’s a reassuring note about wastes, and the barest mention of “planning and licensing approvals“. Business Green discusses the Last Energy plan as “clean energy”  – modules assembled “like a LEGO kit” and designed to be fabricated, transported, and assembled within 24 months”

News media, on the whole, are happy to uncritically trot out a nuclear company’s line – as we find this same project touted in Reuters, in Power, Sustainable Times, in New Civil Engineer. On Google News today, there are 15 similar articles, with only Yahoo! News including a tad of doubt about local public reaction.

And by the way, Tom Pashby in New Civil Engineer also adds to the joy by telling us that the company involved, Last Energy is working with Nato on military applications of micro-reactors.

October 17, 2024 Posted by | Christina's notes, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

What does Google’s move into nuclear power mean for AI – and the world?

” tech companies operate: as supranational organisations that manage to bend countries’ regulation to their will,”

In today’s newsletter: Google will soon use nuclear reactors to run its AI datacentres. What are the economic, ethical and environmental implications?

Archie Bland, Wed 16 Oct 2024

Good morning. If you were looking for an inkblot test for your view of big tech’s investment in artificial intelligence, you could hardly do better than the news that Google is ordering the construction of at least six small nuclear reactors to power the growth of the technology.

Here, in one view, is an enlightened business leveraging its size to invest in infrastructure that could change the world for the better. Here, in another, is a poorly regulated corporation ignoring democratic objections in the brutal race for control of an innovation with great potential to do harm – and leaving the rest of us with little say in its development.

Google is making this eye-catching move because the datacentres that power the explosive growth of generative AI consume huge amounts of electricity – more than the existing grid in the US or other western nations can readily supply. For today’s newsletter, I spoke to technology journalist Chris Stokel-Walker, author of How AI Ate the World, about why the demand for power is growing so quickly – and whether we can trust big tech to handle the consequences. Here are the headlines.

In depth: Why AI needs so much power – and what big tech will do to get it

They might be called “small nuclear reactors”, but don’t be fooled: the 500MW Google is buying from Kairos Power is enough to power a midsize city. To begin to understand the scale of the demand AI puts on the electricity grid, keep in mind that this is only enough to cover one datacentre campus equipped to handle the growing demands of AI. One company alone, OpenAI, is trying to get the White House to sign off on building at least five datacentres, needing 5GW each of power – 10 times as big.

The reason for this nuclear power rush: the vast energy consumption of the computer chips (called graphics processing units or GPUs) that power the training of the large language models crucial to the development of AI. Meanwhile, a ChatGPT query needs nearly 10 times as much electricity to process as a Google search.

“GPUs are more advanced and more powerful than the CPUs [central processing units] of the previous generation of datacentres,” Chris Stokel-Walker said. “So there’s more demand there immediately. But we are also starting to see massive ‘megaclusters’ of GPUs. It’s not just the individual chips getting bigger and needing more power: it’s the race to get as many together to amplify their power as possible.”

How much impact will AI’s demand for power have?

“The challenge in estimating this is that the companies are pretty coy about telling us their power usage,” said Chris. “But there is a settled understanding that the energy used by datacentres is going to increase hugely as AI becomes layered into everything we do.”

The increase in demand already is significant: where the average datacentre drew 10MW of power a decade ago, they need 100MW today. And the biggest can already demand more than 600MW each.

The New York-based Uptime Institute, which has created a benchmarking system that is now industry standard, predicts that whereas AI only accounts for 2% of global datacentres’ power use today, that will reach 10% by next year. “The growth in power consumption is not linear,” Chris said. “In the same way that we used to have whacking great transistors behind our TVs and now we have flatscreens with eco-friendly modes, they are getting more efficient. But that doesn’t mean it’s not going upwards – just that it’s going up more slowly.”

How are tech companies trying to get the power to meet their needs?

By building it or paying others to do so. And because most governments expect that control of AI will be crucial to their ability to compete globally in the future, tech firms have a very strong hand when negotiating what to build and where.

“The argument tech companies are making, and that they’re trying to cement in the minds of decision-makers around the world, is: you either buy into this and sign up, or you run the risk of falling behind,” Chris said.

This New York Times piece lays out a case study of how that plays out in practice. It reports that as part of a recent fundraising effort, OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, told executives at a Taiwanese semiconductor company that it would cost about $7tn (£5.6tn) to fulfil his vision of 36 semiconductor plants and additional datacentres. That’s about a quarter of the total US annual economic output. OpenAI denies that claim, and says that its plans run to the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, Altman has also been considering building these centres in other countries, including the United Arab Emirates. But there are fears in Washington that placing the centres there could give China a back door to American AI advances, because of the links between Chinese and Emirati universities. And at the same time, Altman is exploring plans for centres within the US.

“The warning is being used as a stick alongside the carrot,” Chris said. “They’re saying: if you don’t do this, we will go elsewhere, and you will not just lose the investment, but face a national security risk.”

What is the potential impact on the climate?

Big tech companies insist they are leaning into renewable sources of power as much as possible – and argue that AI could ultimately be a crucial tool to limit the damage caused by the climate crisis.

It is true that tech firms’ investment in renewable sources of energy has played an important part in their growth. But claiming that AI will help defeat the climate crisis is a theoretical benefit that won’t be seen until some point in the fairly distant future. And there are claims that emissions caused by current energy usage from datacentres owned by the likes of Google, Microsoft and Meta are much higher than they admit publicly.

In this piece published last month, Isabel O’Brien reported that big tech firms are using renewable energy credits – which may not actually be used to power the datacentres themselves and which may not even reduce emissions – to artificially deflate their reported emissions. That means the actual figures could be more than seven times higher than the numbers they report.

What about the use of nuclear power?

Google says its experiment makes it the first company in the world to buy nuclear energy from small nuclear reactors. But Amazon and Microsoft have already struck deals with conventional, larger nuclear power plants in the US this year. Don’t panic, but Microsoft’s deal will for the first time in five years activate a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania – the site of the worst nuclear meltdown in US history. Sensibly, they’re emphasising its history of safe operation since the 1979 disaster at another reactor there – and renaming it.

With datacentres estimated to be on track to produce about 2.5bn tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions by 2030, there is an environmental argument for the use of nuclear power. But that is a highly controversial case, which, because of the associated risks, has been the subject of charged democratic debate for many years. Wherever you stand on that question, it is remarkable that these companies appear to be able to simply decide on their own.

“One of the things that’s really striking here is what it says about how tech companies operate: as supranational organisations that manage to bend countries’ regulation to their will,” Chris said.

On the other hand, Google argues its investment in small nuclear reactors could be a necessary boost to a technology that has struggled to get off the ground. “In the end, some of this does trickle down,” said Chris. “They tend to commercialise technologies in a safe way. But it takes a long time, and the benefits are unequally distributed.”

Can governments bring these changes under control?

There are well-documented issues with regulating tech firms: without globally enforced agreements, there will always be another country ready to offer a better deal. See, for example, Ireland’s status as the European home of many big techfirms because of its favourable tax regime.

Regulation does not necessarily need to be globally agreed to be effective, however: in California, for example, new legislation intended to combat greenwashing will soon require all private companies with global revenue above $1bn to publish details of their carbon footprint. Since any big tech firm is bound to want to maintain operations in California, that could have much wider ramifications.

And big tech firms have a valuable card in their hand: the desperate desire among governments around the world to win the AI race. “These companies point to astronomical figures of expected improvements in GDP and they say, this is the wave that is coming,” Chris said. “You can either ride it, or drown.”

October 17, 2024 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

Open AI Wants to Build Data Centres That Would Consume More Electricity Per Year Than the Whole of the U.K.

The Daily Sceptic, by David Turver, 14 October 2024

Over the past few months, the newswires have been hot with stories about the large-scale data centres that will be required to meet the needs of the forthcoming revolution in Artificial Intelligence (AI). How much electricity will these new data centres consume and what does that mean for the electricity demand forecasts underpinning the plans for Net Zero?

Recent Date Centre Announcements.

To give a flavour of the scale of data centre developments that are coming, it is helpful to look at recent announcements from large tech companies. Back in March, it was announced that Amazon had bought a 960MW data centre that is powered by an adjacent nuclear power station. In April, Mark Zuckerberg CEO of Meta that owns Facebook and Instagram said energy requirements may hold back the build out of AI data centres. He also talked about building data centres that would consume 1GW of power.

Last month, Oracle chairman Larry Ellison announced that Oracle was designing a data centre that would consume more than 1GW that would be powered by three small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Then Microsoft also got in on the act when it announced it had done a deal with U.S. utility Constellation to restart the 835MW Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 1 nuclear power plant to power its data centres. Anxious not to be left out, Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google said they too were working on 1GW data centres and saw money being invested in SMRs.

Finally, Sam Altman of OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT has trumped them all by pitching the idea of 5GW data centres to the White House. Altman has been heard talking of building five to seven of these leviathans…………………….

Scale of AI Energy Demand

When companies bandy about such large numbers it is sometimes difficult to visualise just how big they are. For context, consider that a 1GW data centre would consume 8.76TWh of electricity each year. Seven of Altman’s enormous 5GW data centres would consume 306.6TWh. According to DUKES data (Table 5.6) the UK generated 292.6TWh in 2023. The plans for ChatGPT alone would consume more electricity in a year than the U.K., the sixth largest economy in the world, managed to generate. Now consider what the total demand is going to be when you add in the requirements the likes of Amazon, Oracle, Microsoft, Meta, Google and X…………………………………………..

October 17, 2024 Posted by | ENERGY, technology | Leave a comment

Google Pivots to Nuclear Reactors to Power Its Artificial Intelligence

Science Alert, 15 October 2024, Glenn Chapman,

Google on Monday signed a deal to get electricity from small nuclear reactors to help power artificial intelligence.

The agreement to buy energy from reactors built by Kairos Power came just weeks after word that Three Mile Island, the site of America’s worst nuclear accident, will restart operations to provide energy to Microsoft………………………………………..

Insatiable AI

Tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google are rapidly expanding their data center capabilities to meet the AI revolution’s computing needs while also scouring the globe for sources of electricity………………………………….

However, the technology is still in its infancy and lacks regulatory approval, leading companies to seek out existing nuclear power options……………………………..

Is it safe?

………………………………… This area faces severe strain from data centers’ massive energy consumption, raising concerns about grid stability as AI demands increase.

Amazon’s AWS agreed in March to invest $650 million in a data center campus powered by another Pennsylvania nuclear plant.

Nuclear energy has staunch opponents due to concerns about radioactive waste disposal, the potential for catastrophic accidents, and the high costs associated with plant construction and decommissioning………..  https://www.sciencealert.com/google-pivots-to-nuclear-reactors-to-power-its-artificial-intelligence

October 15, 2024 Posted by | technology, USA | 1 Comment

A new military-industrial complex: How tech bros are hyping AI’s role in war

The current debate on military AI is largely driven by “tech bros” and other entrepreneurs who stand to profit immensely from militaries’ uptake of AI-enabled capabilities.

the new military-industrial complex wherein business leaders are framing the future direction of war, despite their lack of military experience.

Bulletin, By Paul Lushenko, Keith Carter | October 7, 2024

Since the emergence of generative artificial intelligence, scholars have speculated about the technology’s implications for the character, if not nature, of war. The promise of AI on battlefields and in war rooms has beguiled scholars. They characterize AI as “game-changing,” “revolutionary,” and “perilous,” especially given the potential of great power war involving the United States and China or Russia.

In the context of great power war, where adversaries have parity of military capabilities, scholars claim that AI is the sine qua non, absolutely required for victory. This assessment is predicated on the presumed implications of AI for the “sensor-to-shooter” timeline, which refers to the interval of time between acquiring and prosecuting a target. By adopting AI, or so the argument goes, militaries can reduce the sensor-to-shooter timeline and maintain lethal overmatch against peer adversaries…………………..

 It encourages policymakers and defense officials to follow what can be called a “primrose path of AI-enabled warfare,” which is codified in the US military’s “third offset” strategy……………………

The current debate on military AI is largely driven by “tech bros” and other entrepreneurs who stand to profit immensely from militaries’ uptake of AI-enabled capabilities. Despite their influence on the conversation, these tech industry figures have little to no operational experience, meaning they cannot draw from first-hand accounts of combat to further justify arguments that AI is changing the character, if not nature, of war. Rather, they capitalize on their impressive business successes to influence a new model of capability development through opinion pieces in high-profile journals, public addresses at acclaimed security conferences, and presentations at top-tier universities.

To the extent analysts do explore the implications of AI for warfighting, such as during the conflicts in Gaza, Libya, and Ukraine, they highlight limited—and debatable—examples of its use, embellish its impacts, conflate technology with organizational improvements provided by AI, and draw generalizations about future warfare.

It is possible that AI-enabled technologies, such as lethal autonomous weapon systems or “killer robots,” will someday dramatically alter war. Yet the current debate for the implications of AI on warfighting discounts critical political, operational, and normative considerations that imply AI may not have the revolutionary impacts that its proponents claim, at least not now.

………………………………………………….. Our research suggests that three related considerations have combined to shape the hype surrounding military AI, informing the primrose path of AI-enabled warfare. First, that primrose path is paved by the emergence of a new military industrial complex that is dependent on commercial service providers. Second, this new defense acquisition process is the cause and effect of a narrative suggesting a global AI arms race, which has encouraged scholars to discount the normative implications of AI-enabled warfare. Finally, while analysts assume that soldiers will trust AI, which is integral to human-machine teaming that facilitates AI-enabled warfare, trust is not guaranteed.

………………………………………………………………….The primrose path of AI-enabled warfare is paved by a new military-industrial complex. Countries typically acquire military technologies, such as drones, for reasons that relate to supply, demand, and status considerations………………………………………………………………………

The political economy of the primrose path of AI-enabled warfare is different. It flips these defense acquisition processes on their heads such that industry drives, rather than responds to, militaries’ requirements for new capabilities. This approach reflects the United States’ historical preference for technology standards that are based on a “bottom-up, laissez-faire corporate-led strategy,” which emphasizes the anticipated economic advantages of leading-sector innovation.

These industry drivers consist of businesses that are funded by venture capitalists, including Anduril, Black Cape, Inc., Clarifai, CrowdAI, and ScaleAI; established defense contractors such as AWS, ECS Federal, IBM, Maxar, Microsoft, Palantir, Raytheon, and the Sierra Nevada Corporation; and business magnates like Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Eric Schmidt. ………………………………………….. Luckey, founder of Anduril, promises to “save western civilization…as we make tens and tens of billions of dollars a year.”

Similarly, Musk’s Starlink uses low-earth orbit satellites to provide militaries’ assured communication in expeditionary and contested environments. Earlier in its war with Russia, Musk decided if Ukraine could use the Starlink satellite network, thus shaping the country’s military operations against Russia on the basis of his fears of crisis escalation. Schmidt’s new start-up, White Stork (previously Swift Beat), is designed to develop fully-autonomous drones. Schmidt, capitalizing on his previous roles as Chairman of the National Security Commission on AI and Director of the Defense Innovation Board, also instantiates the new military-industrial complex wherein business leaders are framing the future direction of war, despite their lack of military experience.

……………………………………………………………………………..the primrose path of AI-enabled warfare is also shaped by a military-industrial complex that provides technical warfighting solutions as a service, meaning they often do not respond to validated military requirements. Thus, companies’ have hedged their bets, investing billions of dollars into end-to-end AI-enabled technologies that they assume militaries will need to purchase to maintain lethal overmatch of adversaries during future conflict. This also means that businesses, especially their software engineers referred to as field engineers, are embedded within military organizations to an unprecedented degree that may muddle the legitimate use of force, at least for some critics.

………………………………………….. an assumption that a monopoly over these technologies will result in economic gains that undergird military power and shape the global balance of power. Russian president Vladimir Putin argued that whoever leads the development of AI will dominate the world; President Xi Jinping intends for China to surpass the United States as the world’s leader of AI development by 2030; and the United States is outspending other countries for AI development……………………………….survey research in the United States shows that support for AI-enabled warfare among both the public and military is strongly shaped by a perceived AI arms race globally.

This perspective has implications for the legal, moral, and ethical considerations that shape countries’ use of force, which scholars emphasize to greater or lesser degrees when characterizing future war. Skeptics caution that AI-enabled warfare will deskill humans and supplant their agency, leading to unintended consequences including crisis escalation, civilian casualties, and accountability and responsibility gaps for these outcomes.

………………………………………………………….Soldiers do not trust AI. The military-industrial complex, and the narratives of an AI arms race that encourages it, assumes that soldiers will trust human-machine teaming. In a recent opinion piece with Schmidt, Mark Milley, formerly chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, pontificated that “soldiers could sip coffee in their offices, monitoring screens far from the battlefield, as an AI system manages all kinds of robotic war machines.” Despite this sanguine prediction, it is unclear what shapes soldiers’ trust in AI, thus encouraging them to overcome inherent skepticism of machines.

…………………………………………………………………. Our findings suggest that soldiers’ trust in AI is not a foregone conclusion. Further, we found that trust is complex and multidimensional. Importantly, these findings are consistent across the military ranks.

First, senior officers do not trust AI-enhanced capabilities. …………………………………………………………………………………

Visualizing the future of war. Still, it is not only likely, but probable, that AI will shape future warfare in unique ways. As discussed above, the development of AI for commercial applications is re-ordering the defense acquisitions process…………………………………………………………………….

The use of AI to create novel text, images, and video will likely exacerbate the challenge of cognitive warfare. This form of non-lethal warfare explains the social engineering of adversaries’ beliefs, with the overall intent to affect their defense priorities, military readiness, and operations. In this way, countries will attempt to harness AI to produce misinformation and disinformation, which are designed to mislead and deceive opponents, and across the competition continuum ranging from peace to war.

During competition, countries will likely use AI to stoke social, political, and economic grievances among their opponents, such that their defense planning and military readiness are embroiled by increasing levels of partisanship, social unrest, and even political violence…………………………………………………………………………………….

During armed conflict, the confusion created by AI-generated psychological operations will threaten situational awareness required for timely decision-making. In the worst case scenarios, this could cause misidentification of friendly forces, leading to fratricide…………………………………………………………….

In the more distant future, as AI matures, further delegation of military operations would likely go to autonomous systems. This is often referred to as minotaur warfare, such that machines control humans during combat and across domains, which can range from patrols of soldiers on the ground to constellations of warships on the ocean to formations of fighter jets in the air…..  https://thebulletin.org/2024/10/a-new-military-industrial-complex-how-tech-bros-are-hyping-ais-role-in-war/

October 13, 2024 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

At last – one corporate newsmedia admits there is no “cloud” – only dirty great steel structures

Stopping the great AI energy squeeze will need more than data centres

 Amazon Web Services is currently rolling out €30bn of investments in
Europe amid a boom in artificial intelligence, according to Neil Morris,
its Irish head. But none of that bonanza is going to Ireland, because
Amazon officials worry about future energy constraints.

Indeed, there are reports that the company has already been rerouting some cloud activity
because of this. And while the Irish government has pledged to expand the
grid, mostly via wind farms, this is not happening fast enough to meet
demand. The water infrastructure is creaking too. Yes, you read that right:
an (in)famously wet and windy country is struggling to sustain tech with
water and wind power. There are at least four sobering lessons here. First,
this saga shows that our popular discourse around tech innovation is, at
best, limited and, at worst, delusional.

More specifically, in modern
culture we tend to talk about the internet and AI as if it they were a
purely disembodied thing (like a “cloud”). As a consequence,
politicians and voters often overlook the unglamorous physical
infrastructure that makes this “thing” work, such as data centres,
power lines and undersea cables.

But this oft-ignored hardware is essential
to the operation of our modern digital economy, and we urgently need to pay
it more respect and attention. Second, we need to realise this
infrastructure is also increasingly under strain. In recent years the
energy consumption of data centres has been fairly stable, because rising
levels of internet usage were offset by rising energy efficiency.

However, this is now changing fast: AI queries use around 10 times more energy than
existing search engines. Thus the electricity consumption of data centres
will at least double by 2026, according to the International Energy Agency
— and in the US they are expected to consume nine per cent of all
electricity by 2030. In Ireland the usage has already exploded to over a
fifth of the grid — more than households.

 FT 4th Oct 2024,
https://www-ft-com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/content/4fd66b27-f51b-4029-af3a-f5521368046f

October 8, 2024 Posted by | Ireland, spinbuster, technology | Leave a comment

On Army bases, nuclear energy can’t add resilience, just costs and risks

In this op-ed, Alan J. Kuperman argues that the risks of adding nuclear reactors to military bases outweigh any benefits.

By   Alan J. Kupermanon October 07, 2024, https://breakingdefense.com/2024/10/on-army-bases-nuclear-energy-cant-add-resilience-just-costs-and-risks/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFxlwlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZAdc8iogUaPZy6lBkxZanmlnIB3-Rh3nkB6DDMNuGH1snaqLwuI5-PJWA_aem_NL8jwrpce6F1ZUFkVDIG9A

Every now and then, the US government offers a huge subsidy to an industry on grounds that make no sense to anyone with even basic knowledge of the subject. The latest example, announced in June, is the Army’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations (ANPI) program to install small reactors on military bases, ostensibly to increase “energy resilience.”

This is perplexing for several reasons. First, such resilience can be provided much more effectively, safely, and cheaply with non-nuclear options. Second, nuclear reactors themselves cannot provide “resilience,” because their safe operation always has required input of electricity to the reactors from other power sources. Third, the Army’s planned reactors would lack a robust containment building, so an attack or accident could disperse radioactive waste, endangering base personnel and neighboring civilians.

Both the Army and taxpayers should cry foul on this indefensible waste of national security dollars.

Of course, energy resilience is a reasonable concern for Army bases, which now get their electricity from the commercial grid that is potentially subject to blackouts from bad weather or even cyberattacks. The simple and inexpensive solution, already utilized by military bases and other essential services including hospitals, is to maintain backup diesel fuel and generators for emergency use. It costs only about $2 million to $4 million for a set of diesel generators to produce 5 megawatts of electricity — the amount the Army seeks — and the diesel fuel would be cheap since the generators would operate only during rare emergencies.

By contrast, the price of a single nuclear reactor to produce the same five megawatts of electricity would be several hundred million dollars — roughly 100 times as expensive — according to government estimates and my previously published research. Even if, as the Army hopes, the reactor could replace the commercial grid as the primary source of power for the base, the electricity produced by the reactor would cost several times more than what the Army now pays for commercial electricity. So, regardless of whether the reactor was used for primary or backup power, Army costs would spike substantially.

What about resilience, which is the supposed justification for buying these expensive reactors?  Well, even though reactors can produce electricity, they have always required an external source of electricity to keep them running safely — most crucially to cool the fuel to avoid a nuclear meltdown and radioactive release. The Army’s recent request for proposals seems to acknowledge this reality by saying that in addition to an external electricity source, the reactor must have an “alternative credited independent power source as a backup.”

Therefore, an Army base reactor would almost surely depend on drawing electricity from the commercial grid. But this means the reactor would be no more resilient than the existing power source it is supposed to replace to increase resilience. In the event of a blackout of the commercial grid, what would the reactor do to get essential electricity? Of course, it would turn on its backup diesel generators. However, if the base requires backup generators anyway, it has no need for the super-expensive reactor.

It gets even worse. To prevent costs from rising even higher, the nuclear industry has decided that its small reactors — the kind the Army is seeking — will be built without a containment building that could prevent radiation from escaping in the event of an accident. This also means the reactors would be more vulnerable to attack by aircraft, missiles, rockets, and drones.

A successful kinetic attack could spread radioactivity in at least two ways. First, like a “dirty bomb,” it could disperse the reactor’s solid irradiated fuel over a wide area into a few or many radioactive chunks that would be very hazardous if approached. Even worse, if the attack interrupted the reactor’s active or passive cooling, the fuel could overheat and breach its cladding, thereby allowing gaseous radioactivity to spread more widely.

Ironically, it is not clear if the Army even wants these nuclear reactors, which originally were proposed in 2018 by Congressional advocates of nuclear energy, who also have promoted nuclear reactors for Air Force bases and forward operating bases — including in war zones where they would be even more vulnerable.

Comments from Pentagon officials about these programs indicate that at least part of the motivation is to help America’s struggling nuclear reactor companies, which have yet to find a single private-sector customer for their small but pricey powerplants. The Defense Secretary’s manager for the Army’s mobile reactor project touts it as “a pathfinder to advanced nuclear reactors in the commercial sector.”  A Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Air Force says, “We’re trying to … create a playbook of how other villages or communities and cities” can pursue “energy through a microreactor.”

But even if the civilian nuclear industry deserved additional subsidies, which is questionable, that would not justify wasting defense dollars on unnecessary reactors that could endanger our troops.

Truthfully, energy resilience for military bases is a real concern that deserves safe, effective, and economical solutions — but nuclear reactors satisfy none of those criteria.

Fortunately, we live in a democracy, so there is still a chance to stop these dangerous boondoggles. Service members and their dependents, communities near military bases, and taxpayers in general can and should call on Congress to suspend the ANPI program — and instead explore how its funding could be reprogrammed more productively.

Alan J. Kuperman is associate professor and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (www.NPPP.org) at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin.

October 8, 2024 Posted by | technology, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »