Land Defence Alliance stands united against the burial of nuclear waste
The group held a rally in Waverley Park on Tuesday afternoon.
NWO Newswatch, Clint Fleury, Apr 30, 2024
THUNDER BAY – With the decision on where Canada will store its nuclear waste looming, four of the six First Nations representatives from the Land Defence Alliance held a rally in Waverley Park to voice their concerns and dangers of this controversial project.
“We’re concerned about future leaks and accidents and we’re very concerned that if that should happen, it could contaminate the local environment like the animals and also the air and the grounds,” said Grassy Narrows Chief Rudy Turtle in an interview with Dougall Media.
Turtle was the first to take the microphone and send out a profound message of solidarity with his fellow First Nations who are opposed to the burial of used nuclear waste in the Revell Lake area.
Currently, Ignace Township and nearby Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation are each in a “willingness process” to decide whether they will be hosts for a deep geological repository between their communities.
Outside of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, no other municipality or First Nation communities have a right to vote on their willingness to allow the storage of nuclear waste in Northwestern Ontario.
In southern Ontario, the municipalities of South Bruce and Saugeen Ojibway Nation are also considering being willing hosts to the repository where it is situated near them.
For many, there are too many variables and “what if” questions as the deep geological repository project slowly becomes less like a science fiction concept.
The trouble is that for many First Nation communities, the government’s track record of leaving contaminated industrial sites on treaty land has given way to skepticism. ……………………………………………………………………..
Turtle explained: “It’s coming from down south which is like 28 hours of driving, or whether it’s coming by train, it’s still like over 20 hours and there’s always the possibility of an accident. We’ve seen it happen with other chemicals. We’ve seen it happen with oil transportation.
“So, the potential, the possibility is there of an accident and people should be concerned about that. The towns that are in between during those 20-hour travel times. Those towns should be concerned. Those towns should be worried about the potential of having nuclear waste dumped or accidentally dumped along their communities.”
At the end of the rally, the Land Defence Alliance stood united to say no to the burial of nuclear waste in Northwestern Ontario. https://www.nwonewswatch.com/local-news/land-defence-alliance-stands-united-against-the-burial-of-nuclear-waste-8676906
Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) responds to Land Defence Alliance protest
In response to the recent Land Defence Alliance protest where a coalition of First Nations said “no” to burying nuclear waste in Northwestern Ontario, Vince Ponka, NWMO’s regional communications manager, attempts to dispel concerns surrounding the deep geological repository project.
Clint Fleury, May 2, 2024
THUNDER BAY – At a protest on Tuesday, Grassy Narrows Chief Rudy Turtle shared his strong opposition to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposed deep geological repository where Canada’s used nuclear fuel will potentially be stored.
In an interview with Dougall Media, Chief Turtle said the Land Defence Alliance has reached out to NWMO to speak with them about the project, but NWMO had a scheduling conflict which prevented them from attending a meeting.
“Well, the Land Defence Alliance just finished meeting these past couple of days and we had invited NWMO to come and sit with us but they didn’t show up, and they had a change of schedule or something and we were looking forward to talking to them,” said Chief Turtle.
Turtle stated they would like to set up a future meeting, but there was no date set at this time.
Vince Ponka, regional communications manager with the NWMO, said the organization was aware of the protest, however they were attending the final day of the “willingness process” in Ignace.
Ponka said the NWMO did reach out to Grassy Narrows to schedule a meeting. According to Ponka, the chief and council asked to meet with NWMO’s chief executive officer, Laurie Swami, the next day.
“Unfortunately, she just wasn’t able to make that quick of a turnaround,” said Ponka.
Ignace Township and nearby Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation are two of four potential hosting communities for the DGR. The other two are the municipalities of South Bruce and Saugeen Ojibway Nation.
Once the “willingness process” is complete in all four host communities, NWMO will start the site selection process.
Ponka said NWMO will have a site selected by the end of the year.
In the meantime, Ponka said he would like to meet with the Land Defence Alliance at any point in the future………………………….
The Land Defence Alliance is concerned about limiting the “willingness” vote to residents of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. However, Ponka did say once the site selection process is finished, NWMO will branch out to the surrounding region to gather input on the next part of the process……………………………………………. https://www.nwonewswatch.com/local-news/nwmo-responds-to-land-defence-alliance-protest-8683263
First Nations leaders voice opposition to nuclear power plants
By Angel Moore, Apr 30, 2024, https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/first-nations-leaders-voice-opposition-to-nuclear-power-plants/
Leaders from three First Nations in New Brunswick made the trip to Ottawa to voice their opposition to the expansion of a nuclear power plant in the province.
The federal government, which is pushing the concept of small modular reactors, or SMRs, and the province are proposing to put new nuclear power plants on the Point Lepreau nuclear site.
The plant sits next to the Bay of Fundy and is Atlantic Canada’s only nuclear facility.
“Our people were never consulted or asked about our input or concerns about nuclear so we’re sitting here today talking about nuclear waste and where to put it, where to place it,” said Wolastoq Council Grand Chief Rom Tremblay.
The plant also sits on the traditional territory of the Passamaquoddy nation.
“Every child needs to see what I saw, they need see those fish they need to see those trees they need healthy air and they do not need nuclear contamination for thousands of years,” said Chief Hugh Akagi at the news conference in Ottawa.
The power plant has been operating since 1983 and provides New Brunswick with 40 per cent of its power.
Like other plants, it uses uranium processed in refineries such as the d’uranium de Blind, located in Blind River, Ont., a small community west of Sudbury on the traditional land of the Mississauga First Nation.
Band Councillor Peyton Pitawanakwat said her band council issued a resolution that said, “To declare opposition to any future use of the Blind River refinery site that would see these lands being used as a disposal site for radioactive wastes unfortunately that challenges faced by our first nation are not unique, and the environmental discrimination is happening all across the country.”
Pitawanakwat said the community is consulting with the Canada Nuclear Safety Commission and that their treaty rights are not being upheld.
“There’s a lot of more in-depth discussions that need to be had and we really are at a point where we need to re-set the relationship and ensure that our rights are being upheld,” she said.
New Brunswick Power didn’t respond to a request for an interview. The Canada Nuclear Safety Commission said an interview was not possible.
The breadth and depth of the nuclear lobby in Canada.
Brennain Lloyd, 4 May 24 Tt appears from the url that the Canadian Nuclear Yearbook for 2019 wasn’t published until 2022, and it is the most recent one, but it’s still worth a scroll through, out of interest. All promotional stuff, of course, but a couple of things to note:
- CNSC has a full page ad for the participant funding program; be interesting to see their procurement policy for paid advertising
- summary reports from the major nuclear advocacy organizations (Canadian Nuclear Society, Canadian Nuclear Association, Nuclear Workers, Council, Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries (OCNI), Women in Nuclear)
- list of all nuclear facilities in Canada, including the multiple facilities within large complexes, such as at Whiteshell and Chalk River
- list of all CANDU operations
- various lists of suppliers and services
The lists give you a sense of the breadth and depth of the nuclear lobby in Canada. It’s seems to me that it is not OPG, NB Power and Hydro Quebec doing the heavy lifting in terms of the nuclear lobby; it all these other organizations and companies that are making large amounts of money from promoting and perpetuating this industry.
It’s posted online at https://cns-snc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CNS_Yearbook_2019_web.pdf
Huge success of renewable energy in California – over 100% of demand for many days
Statistics and Graphs for the 48 of 56 Days From March 8-May 2, 2024,
Where Wind-Water-Solar (WWS) Supply Exceeded 100% of Demand on
California’s Main Grid for 0.25-9.92 Hours Per Day.
Stanford University 3rd May 2024
US cutoff of Russian uranium imports viable but costly to replace
The Sun, 3 May 24
WASHINGTON: The United States’ move toward banning imports of Russian uranium will be viable but replacing that supply will be costly to fund the necessary investment needed to meet the growing demand, a leading US uranium firm and expert told Sputnik.
The US Senate on Tuesday passed the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, sending it to President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed into law. The legislation bans US imports of unirradiated low-enriched uranium produced in Russia or by a Russian entity and measures to close loopholes.
However, the legislation allows waivers should the US determine that no alternative viable source of low-enriched uranium is available to sustain the continued operation of a US nuclear reactor or nuclear energy company, or if it also determines the importation of uranium is in the national interest. Any waiver issued by the US Energy Department must terminate by January 1, 2028, while the ban expires on December 31, 2040.
Scott Melbye, executive vice president of Uranium Energy Corporation and president of Uranium Producers of America, told Sputnik that the ban will mean the US will boost uranium production in the coming years, but also noted that significant new investment will be needed for that to happen.
“The US and its close allies have sufficient mineral resources, technologies, and companies to regain this level of leadership, however, significant capital needs to be deployed to make that a reality,“ Melbye said…………………………………………………………………….
The industry executive noted that the US, Canada, Japan, and the United States plan to mobilise US$4.2 billion to promote a reliable global nuclear energy supply chain, which presents strong export opportunities for American uranium.
The EIA notes that during 2022, 3 per cent of the uranium loaded into US civilian nuclear power reactors was US-origin uranium and 97 per cent was foreign-origin uranium. The United States purchased a total of 32.1 million pounds of uranium concentrate from abroad in 2022.
In 2022, Russia supplied almost a quarter of the enriched uranium used to fuel America’s fleet of more than 90 commercial reactors.
Princeton University Professor Frank Von Hippel, who has served as the US Assistant Director for National Security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, also believes the plan is possible, but will require Western nuclear utilities to spend more.
“It would require the Western nuclear utilities to buy more uranium and to pay more for enrichment work,“ Von Hippel told Sputnik. “The US utilities, at least, are notoriously sensitive to even small cost increases. That is why it has taken two years for Congress to get to this point. And… they are allowing escape clauses if any utility really gets desperate.”
The legislation is meant to cut off a source of revenue to Russia amid its special military operation in Ukraine, but Von Hippel said he does not expect it to make much of a difference considering Russia gets most of its foreign exchange from selling oil and gas.
Russian nuclear company Rosatom could be expected to lose some reactor sales and some fuel sales in some other countries because of the ban, but other countries that have already signed contracts for new reactors, and have them under construction, are locked in, Von Hippel added.
Sarah Fields, programme director for environmental group Uranium Watch, said that although her group supports cutting off revenue to Russia, they also urge the United States to end its reliance on nuclear power.
“The United States should end its reliance on nuclear power, which is not a viable solution to climate change,“ Fields told Sputnik. “Uranium Watch does not support the expansion of uranium fuel production in the United States. With no national repository for long-term care and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, it is irresponsible and foolish to continue to extend the lives of existing nuclear reactors and support the development of new reactors.”
Fields further said that uranium mining is the least regulated part of the nuclear fuel chain and continues to pollute land, air, and water as well as expose rural and Indigenous communities to radiological emissions and contamination……………………………. https://thesun.my/world/us-cutoff-of-russian-uranium-imports-viable-but-costly-to-replace-DG12413527
Georgia’s Vogtle 2 nuclear reactors cost over $30Billion, – but were meant to cost $14Billion
Georgia Power announced this week that the 1,114-megawatt (MW) Unit 4
nuclear power reactor at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Georgia, entered
into commercial operation after connecting to the power grid in March 2024.
The commercial start of Unit 4 completes the 11-year expansion project at
Plant Vogtle.
No nuclear reactors are under construction now in the United
States.
Vogtle Unit 3 began commercial operation in July 2023. The plant’s
first two reactors, with a combined 2,430 MW of nameplate capacity, began
operations in 1987 and 1989. The two new reactors bring Plant Vogtle’s
total generating capacity to nearly 5 gigawatts (GW), surpassing the
4,210-MW Palo Verde plant in Arizona and making Vogtle’s four units the
largest nuclear power plant in the United States.
Construction at the two
new reactor sites began in 2009. Originally expected to cost $14 billion
and begin commercial operation in 2016 (Vogtle 3) and in 2017 (Vogtle 4),
the project ran into significant construction delays and cost overruns.
Georgia Power now estimates the total cost of the project to be more than
$30 billion.
US Energy Information Administration 1st May 2024
US Air Force pays $13 billion for new ‘doomsday’ planes that protect president during a nuclear attack – sparking fears America’s preparing for WWIII
- The contract is to replace the four doomsday planes in use due to them ageing
- The fleet is used to protect the president in the event of a nuclear attack
- READ MORE: America’s ‘doomsday’ plane was sent on a four-hour training
By STACY LIBERATORE FOR DAILYMAIL.COM, 30 April 2024
American is set to get a new fleet of ‘doomsday planes’ that some have said signal the nation could be preparing for World Ward III.
The US Air Forced announced a $13 billion contract to develop craft to replace the aging Boeing planes that are used to protect the president during a nuclear attack.
The funds were awarded to Sierra Nevada Corp, which will design a successor to the E-4B ‘Nightwatch’ that features a mobile command post capable of withstanding nuclear blasts and electromagnetic effects.
The project, called Survival Airborne Operations Center, is expected to be completed by 2036…………………..
The Air Force has a fleet of four E-4Bs, with at least one on alert at all times, but the Boeings are aging and many parts have become obsolete.
Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), an American aerospace company, said: ‘SNC is building the airborne command center of the future!………………………………..
Boeing was let go as the sole provider of the doomsday planes in December 2023 after the company and US military could not agree on pricing for the next-generation fleet.
Details of SNC’s design have not been shared, but the craft will likely resemble the current E-4B ‘Nightwatch.
The current doomsday plane includes an advanced satellite communications system, nuclear and thermal effects shielding, acoustic control and an advanced air-conditioning system for cooling electrical components.
The planes can also be refueled in the air and have remained airborne and operational for as long as 35.4 hours in one stint.
The engine can produce 52,500 pounds of thrust and the plane can carry up to 800,000 pounds.
Each E-4B ‘Nightwatch’ is 231 feet long with a 195-foot wingspan – and cost $223 million to make.
The Air Force said in the FY2024 budget request that SAOC will provide ‘a worldwide, survivable, and enduring node of the National Military Command System (NMCS) to fulfill national security requirements throughout all stages of conflict,’ according to SWNS.
As a command, control and communications center directing US forces, executing emergency war orders and coordinating the activities of civil authorities including national contingency plans, this capability ensures continuity of operations and continuity of government as required in a national emergency or after negation/destruction of ground command and control centers,’ the military branch added.
‘SAOC will fulfill the requirements of the AF Nuclear Mission by providing Nuclear Command, Control and Communications (NC3) capabilities to enable the exercise of authority and direction by the President to command and control US military nuclear weapons operations.’
SNC has not revealed what airframe they will use for their doomsday planes.
The E-4Bs are operated by the First Airborne Command and Control Squadron of the 595th Command and Control Group, are coordinated by the United States Strategic Command and are stationed near Omaha, Nebraska, at the Offutt Air Force Base.
One of the doomsday planes was sent on a four-hour training flight in 2022 after Vladimir Putin placed Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert.
Military flight tracking sites showed the modified Boeing 747 had departed from the US Air Force base in Lincoln, Nebraska and carried out a training flight with other specialist military aircraft. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13363035/US-Air-Force-pays-13-billion-new-doomsday-planes-protect-president-nuclear-attack-sparking-fears-Americas-preparing-WWWIII.html
To find a place to store spent nuclear fuel, Congress needs to stop trying to revive Yucca Mountain
Bulletin, By David Klaus | April 30, 2024
A recent congressional hearing strangely resembled the film Groundhog Day. The hearing—titled “American Nuclear Energy Expansion: Spent Fuel Policy and Innovation”—not only rekindled a decades-old debate about whether to recycle spent nuclear fuel from reactors; it also provided a platform to relive yet again the fantasy that somehow the US government can resolve all of the political, legal, and technical issues necessary to build a permanent nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
The Republican leadership of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce clearly supported one path forward for commercial spent fuel. In her opening remarks, committee chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican from Washington state, urged the committee to “update the law and build state support for a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain.” In his own opening remarks, Jeff Duncan, a South Carolina Republican and chair of the subcommittee hosting the hearing, lamented that “[u]nfortunately, the political objections of one state, NOT based on scientific reality, blocked the [Yucca Mountain] repository from being licensed and constructed.” Yucca Mountain was a recurrent theme in witness testimony and congressional questioning throughout the hearing.
But to really advance federal policy and innovation on spent nuclear fuel, Congress needs to learn the lessons of Yucca Mountain and to stop trying to revive it.
In the 2020 presidential campaign, Donald Trump and Joe Biden agreed there shouldn’t be an underground repository to permanently store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and that it was time for everyone else to accept that the project was finally off the table. As was the case four years ago, it is very unlikely the next administration, be it led by President Biden or President Trump, is going to reverse its position and attempt to revive a multibillion-dollar infrastructure project that has been dormant for over a decade.
Even if support were to emerge at the federal level, attempting to obtain permits for the facility would create an extraordinary legal and regulatory morass. The state of Nevada alone had filed over 200 objections to the Yucca Mountain construction and operating permits that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was considering before the process for considering them was suspended in 2011…………………………………………………………………………………… more https://thebulletin.org/2024/04/to-find-a-place-to-store-spent-nuclear-fuel-congress-needs-to-stop-trying-to-revive-yucca-mountain/
As Peace Protests Are Violently Suppressed, CNN Paints Them as Hate Rallies
JULIE HOLLAR, 3 May 24, https://fair.org/home/as-peace-protests-are-violently-suppressed-cnn-paints-them-as-hate-rallies/
As peace activists occupied common spaces on campuses across the country, some in corporate media very clearly took sides, portraying student protesters as violent, hateful and/or stupid. CNN offered some of the most striking of these characterizations.
Dana Bash (Inside Politics, 5/1/24) stared gravely into the camera and launched into a segment on “destruction, violence and hate on college campuses across the country.” Her voice dripping with hostility toward the protests, she reported:
Many of these protests started peacefully with legitimate questions about the war, but in many cases, they lost the plot. They’re calling for a ceasefire. Well, there was a ceasefire on October 6, the day before Hamas terrorists brutally murdered more than a thousand people inside Israel and took hundreds more as hostages. This hour, I’ll speak to an American Israeli family whose son is still held captive by Hamas since that horrifying day, that brought us to this moment. You don’t hear the pro-Palestinian protesters talking about that. We will.
By Bash’s logic, once a ceasefire is broken, no one can ever call for it to be reinstated—even as the death toll in Gaza nears 35,000. But her claim that there was a ceasefire until Hamas broke it on October 7 is little more than Israeli propaganda: Hundreds of Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces and settlers in the year preceding October 7 (FAIR.org, 7/6/23).
‘Hearkening back to 1930s Europe’
Bash continued:
Now protesting the way the Israeli government, the Israeli prime minister, is prosecuting the retaliatory war against Hamas is one thing. Making Jewish students feel unsafe at their own schools is unacceptable, and it is happening way too much right now.
As evidence of this lack of safety, Bash pointed to UCLA student Eli Tsives, who posted a video of himself confronting motionless antiwar protesters physically standing in his way on campus. “This is our school, and they’re not letting me walk in,” he claims in the clip. Bash ominously described this as “hearkening back to the 1930s in Europe.”
Bash was presumably referring to the rise of the Nazis and their increasing restrictions on Jews prior to World War II. But while Tsives’ clip suggests protesters are keeping him off UCLA campus, they’re in fact blocking him from their encampment—where many Jewish students were present. (Jewish Voice for Peace is one of its lead groups.)
So it’s clearly not Tsives’ Jewishness that the protesters object to. But Tsives was not just any Jewish student; a UCLA drama student and former intern at the pro-Israel group Stand With Us, he had been a visible face of the counter-protests, repeatedly posting videos of himself confronting peaceful antiwar protesters. He has shown up to the encampment wearing a holster of pepper spray.
One earlier video he made showing himself being denied entry to the encampment included text on screen claiming misleadingly that protestors objected to his Jewishness: “They prevented us, Jewish students, from entering public land!” (“You can kiss your jobs goodbye, this is going to go viral on social media,” he tells the protesters.) He also proudly posted his multiple interviews on Fox News, which was as eager as Bash to help him promote his false narrative of antisemitism.
‘Attacking each other’
UCLA protesters had good reason to keep counter-protesters out of their encampment, as those counter-protesters had become increasingly hostile (Forward, 5/1/24; New York Times, 4/30/24). This aggression culminated in a violent attack on the encampment on April 30 (Daily Bruin, 5/1/24).
Late that night, a pro-Israel mob of at least 200 tried to storm the student encampment, punching, kicking, throwing bricks and other objects, spraying pepper spray and mace, trying to tear down plywood barricades and launching fireworks into the crowd. As many as 25 injuries have been reported, including four student journalists for the university newspaper who were assaulted by goons as they attempted to leave the scene (Forward, 5/2/24; Democracy Now!, 5/2/24).
Campus security stood by as the attacks went on; when the university finally called in police support, the officers who arrived waited over an hour to intervene (LA Times, 5/1/24).
(The police were less reticent in clearing out the encampment a day later at UCLA’s request. Reporters on the scene described police in riot gear firing rubber bullets at close range and “several instances of protesters being injured”—LA Times, 5/3/24.)
The mob attacks at UCLA, along with police use of force at that campus and elsewhere, clearly represent the most “destruction, violence and hate” at the encampments, which have been overwhelmingly peaceful. But Bash’s description of the UCLA violence rewrote the narrative to fit her own agenda: “Pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups were attacking each other, hurling all kinds of objects, a wood pallet, fireworks, parking cones, even a scooter.”
When CNN correspondent Stephanie Elam reported, later in the same segment, that the UCLA violence came from counter-protesters, Bash’s response was not to correct her own earlier misrepresentation, but to disparage antiwar protesters: Bash commended the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles for saying the violence does not represent the Jewish community, and snidely commented: “Be nice to see that on all sides of this.”
‘Violence erupted’
Bash wasn’t the only one at CNN framing antiwar protesters as the violent ones, against all evidence. Correspondent Camila Bernal (5/2/24) reported on the UCLA encampment:
The mostly peaceful encampment was set up a week ago, but violence erupted during counter protest on Sunday, and even more tense moments overnight Tuesday, leaving at least 15 injured. Last night, protesters attempted to stand their ground, linking arms, using flashlights on officers’ faces, shouting and even throwing items at officers. But despite what CHP described as a dangerous operation, an almost one-to-one ratio officers to protesters gave authorities the upper hand.
Who was injured? Who was violent? Bernal left that to viewers’ imagination. She did mention that officers used “what appeared to be rubber bullets,” but the only participant given camera time was a police officer accusing antiwar students of throwing things at police.
Earlier CNN reporting (5/1/24) from UCLA referred to “dueling protests between pro-Palestinian demonstrators and those supporting Jewish students.” It’s a false dichotomy, as many of the antiwar protesters are themselves Jewish, and eyewitness reports suggested that many in the mob were not students and not representative of the Jewish community (Times of Israel, 5/2/24).
CNN likewise highlighted the law and order perspective after Columbia’s president called in the NYPD to respond to the student takeover of Hamilton Hall. CNN Newsroom (5/1/24) brought on a retired FBI agent to analyze the police operation. His praise was unsurprising:
It was impressive. It was surprisingly smooth…. The beauty of America is that we can say things, we can protest, we can do this publicly, even when it’s offensive language. But you can’t trespass and keep people from being able to go to class and going to their graduations. We draw a line between that and, you know, civil control.
CNN host Jake Tapper (4/29/24) criticized the Columbia president’s approach to the protests—for being too lenient: “I mean, a college president’s not a diplomat. A college president’s an authoritarian, really.” (More than a week earlier, president Minouche Shafik had had more than a hundred students arrested for camping overnight on a lawn—FAIR.org, 4/19/24.)
‘Taking room from my show’
Tapper did little to hide his utter contempt for the protesters. He complained:
This is taking room from my show that I would normally be spending covering what is going on in Gaza, or what is going on with the International Criminal Court, talking about maybe bringing charges. We were talking about the ceasefire deal. I mean, this—so I don’t know that the protesters, just from a media perspective, are accomplishing what they want to accomplish, because I’m actually covering the issue and the pain of the Palestinians and the pain of the Israelis—not that they’re protesting for that—less because of this.
It’s Tapper and CNN, of course, who decide what stories are most important and deserve coverage—not campus protesters. Some might say that that a break from CNN‘s regular coverage the Israel’s assault on Gaza would not altogether be a bad thing, as CNN staffers have complained of “regurgitation of Israeli propaganda and the censoring of Palestinian perspectives in the network’s coverage of the war in Gaza” (Guardian, 2/4/24)
The next day, Tapper’s framing of the protests made clear whose grievances he thought were the most worthy (4/30/24): “CNN continues to following the breaking news on college campuses where anti-Israel protests have disrupted academic life and learning across the United States.”
Small modular reactors aren’t the energy answer for Canada’s remote communities and mines
The energy costs associated with small modular reactors exceed those of diesel-based electricity. Policy-makers should focus on renewables.
by Sarah Froese, Nadja Kunz, M. V. Ramana August 26, 2020 https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2020/small-modular-reactors-arent-the-energy-answer-for-remote-communities-and-mines/
A new type of theoretical nuclear power plant design called small modular reactors (SMRs) has been in the news of late. Earlier this year, at the 2020 Canadian Nuclear Association conference, Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan announced that the federal government will release an SMR Action Plan this fall. Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have announced their backing and possibly some financial support for the development of these reactors.
Promoters suggest that remote communities and off-grid mining operations are promising markets for SMRs in Canada. These communities and mines pay a lot for electricity because they are reliant on diesel generators, and transporting and storing diesel to these locations can be very expensive. Thus, supporters hope, SMRs might be a way to lower electricity costs and carbon dioxide emissions.
We examined this proposition in detail in a recently published paper and concluded that this argument has two problems. First, the electricity that SMRs produce is far more expensive than diesel-based electricity. Second, even ignoring this problem, the total demand for electricity at these proposed markets is insufficient to justify investing in a factory to manufacture the SMRs.
SMRs have been proposed as a way to deal with many problems associated with large nuclear power plants, in particular the high costs of construction, running to tens of billions of dollars. SMR designs have much in common with large nuclear reactors, including, most basically, their reliance on nuclear fission reactions to produce electricity. But they also differ from large nuclear reactors in two ways. First, they have electricity outputs of less than 300 megawatts (MW) and sometimes as low as a few MW, considerably lower than the outputs of 700 to 1500 MW typical of large nuclear reactors. Second, SMR designs use modular means of manufacturing, so that they need only be assembled, rather than fully constructed, at the plant site. While large reactors that have been constructed in recent years have also adopted modular construction, SMR designers hope to rely more substantially on these techniques.
A standard metric used to evaluate the economics of different energy choices is called the levelized cost of energy (LCOE). We calculated that the LCOE for SMRs could be over ten times greater than the LCOE for diesel-based electricity. The cheapest options are hybrid generation systems, with wind or solar meeting a part of the electricity demand and diesel contributing the rest.
Why this high cost? The primary problem is that the small outputs from SMRs run counter to the logic of economies of scale. Larger reactors are more cost-efficient because they produce more electricity for each unit of material (such as concrete and steel) they use and for the number of operators they employ. SMR proponents argue that they can make up for this through the savings from mass manufacture at factories and the learning that comes with manufacturing many reactors. The problem is that building a factory requires a sizable market, sometimes referred to as an order book. Without a large number of orders, the investment needed to build the factory will not be justified.
We estimated the potential market for SMRs at remote mines and communities in Canada. We drew primarily upon two databases produced by Natural Resources Canada regarding mining areas and remote communities. As of 2018, there were 24 remote mining projects that could be candidates for SMR deployment within the next decade. Currently, these projects use diesel generators with a total installed capacity of 617 MW. For remote communities, we calculated a fossil fuel (primarily diesel) generation capacity of 506 MW. But many of these communities had demands that were too low for even the smallest-output SMR under review at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
Even if all these potential buyers want to adopt SMRs for electricity supply, without regard to the economic or noneconomic factors weighing against the construction of nuclear reactors, the combined demand would likely be much less than 1000 MW. The minimum demand required to justify the cost of producing SMRs would be three to seven times higher.
Furthermore, we concluded that the economics of SMRs don’t compete when compared with other alternatives. The cost of electricity from SMRs was found to be much higher than the cost of wind or solar, or even of the diesel supply currently used in the majority of these mines and communities.
Of course, our estimates for the LCOEs of different sources are dependent on various assumptions. We tried varying these assumptions within reasonable limits and found that the main result — that electricity from SMRs is far more expensive than the corresponding costs of generating electricity using diesel, wind, solar or some combination thereof — remains valid. All else being equal, the assumed capital cost of constructing a SMR would have to decline by over 95 percent to be competitive with a wind-diesel hybrid system. The limited experience with SMRs that are being built around the world suggests that construction costs will be higher, not lower, than advocates promise.
Meanwhile, renewables and storage technologies have seen substantial cost declines over the past decades. Recent estimates place wind, solar and hybrid systems at costs competitive with diesel power. Successful demonstrations suggest that renewable hybrid applications are becoming increasingly feasible for heavy industry, and the implementation of numerous numerous projects in northern communities suggests a high level of social acceptance. Many northern and, in particular, Indigenous communities have an interest in self-determined decision-making and maintaining a good relationship with the land. In June 2019, for example, the Anishinabek Chiefs-in-Assembly, representing 40 First Nations across Ontario, unanimously expressed opposition to SMRs. Grand Council Chief Glen Hare announced that the Anishinabek Nation is “vehemently opposed to any effort to situate SMRs within our territory.”
Instead of focusing on SMRs, policy-makers should bolster support for other renewable generation technologies as key mechanisms to reduce carbon emissions and align with community values.
Jewish Groups Decry House Passage of Bill Defining Criticism of Israel as ‘Antisemitism’
“Antisemitism is a serious problem, but codifying a legal definition could have dangerous implications for free speech,” said one campaigner.
BRETT WILKINS, May 01, 2024, Common Dreams,
House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to approve legislation directing the U.S. Department of Education to consider a dubious definition of antisemitism, despite warnings from Jewish-led groups that the measure speciously conflates legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with bigotry against Jewish people.
House members approved the Antisemitism Awareness Act—bipartisan legislation introduced last year by Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Max Miller (R-Ohio), and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) in the lower chamber and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the Senate—by a vote of 320-91.
Both progressive Democrats and far-right Republicans opposed language in the bill. The former objected to conflating criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, while the latter bristled at labeling Christian scripture—which posits that Jews killed Jesus—as antisemitic.
“Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews. Unfortunately, one doesn’t need to look far to find it these days. But the supporters of this bill are looking in the wrong places,” Hadar Susskind, president and CEO of the Jewish-led group Americans for Peace Now, said following Wednesday’s vote.
“They aren’t interested in protecting Jews,” he added. “They are interested in supporting right-wing views and narratives on Israel and shutting down legitimate questions and criticisms by crying ‘antisemite’ at everyone, including Jews” who oppose Israel’s far-right government………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.commondreams.org/news/antisemitism-awareness-act
ARC might need to redesign its SMR technology: former president + US bans import of enriched uranium + more to the story
Susan O’Donnell, 2 May 24 To clarify, there’s currently no enrichment plant in the US that produces HALEU (fuel enriched between 5 and 20 percent), as far as I’m aware. Any nuclear fuel enrichment happening in the U.S. would be for the existing light-water reactors that use fuel enriched to less than 5 percent. My take: the idea that the ARC reactor design could change from using HALEU fuel to low enriched uranium is frankly ridiculous. It would not be the same reactor at all, it would be a completely different design. Quote: “It’s not something that can’t be fixed,” Sawyer said. Fixed? WTF? This whole project is a scam. |
U.S. Senate passes Russian uranium import ban
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3858689-us-senate-passes-russian-uranium-import-ban.html
The article above is about the shortage of HALEU, the fuel currently only available in Russia that is needed by the designs of advanced reactors cooled by liquids other than water. The design for the ARC reactor slated for Point Lepreau in New Brunswick requires HALEU.
New Brunswick’s Telegraph Journal:
ARC might need to redesign its SMR technology: former president
Norm Sawyer points to other companies around the world that pivoted quickly to address the lack of enriched uranium available
Adam Huras
Published May 01, 2024
The former president and CEO of ARC Clean Technology says the company might need to redesign its small modular nuclear reactor technology.
Norm Sawyer points to other companies around the world that pivoted quickly to address the lack of enriched uranium available.
Brunswick News reported earlier this week that ARC is still in search of a new enriched uranium supplier, after it originally planned to buy from Russia.
Meanwhile, Energy Minister Mike Holland says he has been assured that “there’s a queue for North American enriched uranium and we’re in it,” maintaining the company that the Higgs government spent $20 million on won’t be shut out.
Firms around the world developing a new generation of small nuclear reactors to help cut carbon emissions have been forced to face a big problem: The only company that sells the enriched fuel they need is Russian.
“It’s not only ARC, the industry in general is really dealing with the fallout of the war,” Sawyer said, who is now a nuclear consultant through his own firm. “Russia is the main supplier of HALEU around the world.”
High-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) is an integral component of the company’s ARC-100 sodium-cooled fast reactor, as well as a number of other advanced reactors currently in development attempting to achieve smaller designs.
But it’s not as simple as finding that enriched uranium closer to home.
While Canada mines uranium – there are currently five uranium mines and mills operating in Canada, all located in northern Saskatchewan – it does not have uranium enrichment plants.
The U.S. opened its first and only enrichment plant last year, operated by Centrus Energy in Ohio, amid a federal push to find a solution to the Russia problem.
It remains the only facility in the U.S. licensed to enrich uranium.
It currently has contracts with two American companies pursuing SMR technology, although it says it could rapidly expand production with federal investment.
One of those, TerraPower, a nuclear reactor developer founded by Bill Gates, has said Russia’s invasion would mean a delay to the deployment of its Natrium reactor by at least two years.
Other companies have pivoted.
Sawyer pointed to Denmark’s Seaborg Technologies that announced last year it would be changing its proposed SMR fuel from HALEU to low-enriched uranium “due to the risks associated with developing a sufficient supply.”
That resulted in design changes.
It was a move the company said was necessary to meet its planned timeline to see a first group of SMRs ready by 2028……………………………………………………..
What I’ve been told that there are a number of things taking place to ensure that there’s a queue for North American enriched uranium and we’re in it,” Holland said.
“That’s what I’ve been told and told definitively.”
Holland said the U.S. has a “vested interest” in aiding Canada and its SMR technology because Canada has the uranium they’re going to need as well.
“There are people saying ‘hey, if Canada is going to be your large supplier we’re going to have to work out, quid pro quo, that we don’t get excluded,’” he said.
Holland maintained that “our toe is stuck in the door so we have an opportunity to be part of that supply chain………………………………..
Sawyer said making a change to a different fuel means components will need to be redesigned.
“Obviously, you design a reactor for the type of fuel you’re going to use so there’s obviously some work to be done to realign the reactor core to the new type of fuel,” he said. “Is it easy? I’m not sure if it’s easy. There is some work to be done, there’s no doubt.”
Sawyer added that there’s two components to SMRs: the reactor design, construction and deployment, and then the fuel.
“Any delay on either one of those sides of the equation could cause a delay later on,” he said.
A new nuclear energy law will likely mean higher utility bills
RADIO IQ | By Michael Pope, May 2, 2024, https://www.wvtf.org/news/2024-05-02/a-new-nuclear-energy-law-will-likely-mean-higher-utility-bills
Customers of Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power might soon start seeing higher electric bills. That’s because of a new law signed by Governor Glenn Youngkin that allows for utilities to make customers pay for the costs of developing nuclear power facilities – things like permitting, for example. The bill was introduced by Senator Dave Marsden of Fairfax County.
“Ratepayers could be responsible for $1.40 a month for up to five years in creating the funds necessary to get through the nuclear regulatory commission process, which is hugely expensive,” Marsden says. “It takes four to five years.”
Utility customers don’t usually pay for things like development, and Josephus Allmond at the Southern Environmental Law Center says this poses a risk for ratepayers.
“The risk is that customers are footing the bill for this development several years, and if it doesn’t come to fruition, then they’ve just spent $500 million or $125 million, depending on the utility you’re talking about, going towards development of something that will never benefit them,” Allmond explains.
The new law goes into effect July 1st, but utilities would need to have any plans approved by the State Corporation Commission. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the goal for Virginia to be emissions free by 2050, a benchmark laid out in the Virginia Clean Economy Act.
This report, provided by Virginia Public Radio, was made possible with support from the Virginia Education Association.
US House votes to officially label Israel critics ‘antisemites’
“it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.”
Rights groups have warned that the definition could be used to target pro-Palestine protesters on university campuses
News Desk, MAY 2, 2024 https://thecradle.co/articles-id/24681
The US House of Representatives passed a bill on 1 May to expand the federal definition of antisemitism, coming in the wake of widespread pro-Palestine protests on university campuses across the country.
The bill passed in a 320 to 91 vote, and will now go to the Senate for consideration.
If successful, the bill would codify a definition of antisemitism established by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). IHRA defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
The IHRA definition of antisemitism also includes the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”
The definition says any comparison between “contemporary Israeli policy” and “that of the nazis” is antisemitic, as well as referring to Israel as “racist.”
This bill could potentially be used to bar funding of any institution perceived as advocating antisemitism, as many university campuses have been recently due to widespread support for the Palestinian cause.
Some have warned that it could specifically be used to confront pro-Palestine protests at US university campuses, which many have accused of being anti-Jewish.
Certain rights groups have criticized the bill for this reason. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called on members of the House to vote against it, clarifying that US federal legislation against antisemitism already exists.
The bill is “not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination,” ACLU said, adding that, “Instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.”
Campus protests have continued to rage in universities across the US, with violent police crackdowns taking place over the past few days. Dozens of protesters at New York’s Columbia University were aggressively detained by police on Tuesday night when the NYPD raided a building in which the students had barricaded themselves in.
Similar violent arrests involving the use of pepper spray took place at other universities.
Pro-Israel counter-protesters attacked the Gaza Solidarity Encampment at UCLA on 30 April, facing little to no backlash from campus authorities and police. The incident has spurred major outrage and criticism.
On Wednesday evening, riot police surrounded the pro-Palestine encampment at UCLA and are planning to move on the protesters and clear them out.
1 This Month
23 April – WEBINAR – Why new nuclear reactors are the wrong tools for decarbonization Thursday, April 23 • 1 AM – 2 AM AEST
World Nuclear Power. Reactors 1951-2026, 75 Years of Nuclear Power.
Interactive Map– https://dv.worldnuclearreport.org/
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (231)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 