NORTH KOREA BENEFITS FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS. GET USED TO IT. War on the Rocks, Markl S Bell, 2 Oct 17It isoftensaidthatnuclear weapons offer little beyond the ability to deter. But if nuclear weapons deter, they also necessarily offer benefits to states that go well beyond simply deterring attack. North Korea today is in the process of reaping those benefits, and this will constrain American foreign policy in the region. As much as American policymakers might want to wish this away, it is better to adjust the sails than to hope the wind disappears. War with North Korea should now be off the table and the denuclearization of North Korea is similarly unrealistic. If the United States wants to tamp down the current crisis, it needs to get used to North Korean nuclear weapons and the constraints they impose on U.S. foreign policy.
It is true that nuclear weapons deter. But because they deter attack, they also act as a shield that reduces the risks and costs of pursuing a host of other foreign policy behaviors. My researchshows that nuclear weapons can facilitate a range of objectives that states of all stripes may find attractive. Possessing nuclear weapons can allow states to act more independently of allies, engage in aggression, expand their position and influence, reinforce and strengthen alliances, or stand more firmly in defense of the status quo. States with nuclear weapons are aware of these benefits, and use nuclear weapons to pursue them. This applies as much to democratic states committed to the status quo as it does to authoritarian or revisionist states.
Consider the case of Britain. A declining, status quo state when it acquired nuclear weapons in the 1950s, Britain was increasingly dependent on the United States for its security, facing growing challenges to its role as the preeminent power in the Middle East, while its commitments to allies were becoming increasingly uncredible. What did it do when it acquired nuclear weapons? As I show in a 2015 International Securityarticle, Britain used nuclear commitments instead of conventional military commitments (which it could no longer afford) to reassure allies that were increasingly skeptical of Britain’s ability to come to their aid. Similarly, Britain’s nuclear weapons reduced the risks of acting more independently of the United States and of using military force to resist challenges to its position in the Middle East……..
Today, North Korea is taking advantage of its nuclear weapons, just as past nuclear states have done. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So, if North Korean nuclear weapons are useful even if they never get used, what might Kim Jong Un’s regime want to use them for?
North Korea faces serious military threats from South Korea and the United States. South Korea is vastly more economically powerful and has the support of the most powerful state the world has ever known. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States —unconstrained by the absence of a peer competitor — has shown a repeated inclination to pursue regime change around the world, labelled North Korea as part of the “Axis of Evil”, imposed punishing sanctions on North Korea, and kept tens of thousands of forces stationed in the region……
North Korea would like to be able to stop the United States from flying military aircraft close to its territory (particularly the B-1B Lancer flights from Guam) and weaken the U.S.-South Korean alliance. It would like to show that Washington’s threats of regime change or military intervention on the Korean peninsula are empty talk, and demonstrate that the United States is unable to shoot down its missiles. And North Korea may want to be able to more credibly threaten military action against South Korea. All of these make good strategic sense for North Korea as it seeks to reduce the threats it faces and strengthen its position on the Korean peninsula in the face of massive U.S. conventional military superiority.
How do North Korean nuclear weapons help it achieve these goals? By raising the dangers of escalation, North Korea seeks to drive wedges between the United States and South Korea and raise fears of “decoupling” as well as to make it riskier for the United States to fly planes close to its airspace or engage militarily on the Korean peninsula. North Korea launches missiles, daring the United States to try (and quite likely fail) to shoot them down; it refuses to back down when challenged; and it raises the possibility of more provocative nuclear tests.
These actions are predictable, because they advance North Korean national interests. But they are also dangerous, raising the risk of escalation. This is a feature, not a bug, of North Korean strategy. Raising escalation risks is exactly how North Korea hopes to convince the United States to back off and, therefore, to improve its position on the Korean peninsula. And in the process of such escalation, North Korea might be entirely rational to use nuclear weapons first if things got bad enough.
What should the United States do?
North Korea would like to be able to stop the United States from flying military aircraft close to its territory (particularly the B-1B Lancer flights from Guam) and weaken the U.S.-South Korean alliance. It would like to show that Washington’s threats of regime change or military intervention on the Korean peninsula are empty talk, and demonstrate that the United States is unable to shoot down its missiles. And North Korea may want to be able to more credibly threaten military action against South Korea. All of these make good strategic sense for North Korea as it seeks to reduce the threats it faces and strengthen its position on the Korean peninsula in the face of massive U.S. conventional military superiority.
How do North Korean nuclear weapons help it achieve these goals? By raising the dangers of escalation, North Korea seeks to drive wedges between the United States and South Korea and raise fears of “decoupling” as well as to make it riskier for the United States to fly planes close to its airspace or engage militarily on the Korean peninsula. North Korea launches missiles, daring the United States to try (and quite likely fail) to shoot them down; it refuses to back down when challenged; and it raises the possibility of more provocative nuclear tests.
These actions are predictable, because they advance North Korean national interests. But they are also dangerous, raising the risk of escalation. This is a feature, not a bug, of North Korean strategy. Raising escalation risks is exactly how North Korea hopes to convince the United States to back off and, therefore, to improve its position on the Korean peninsula. And in the process of such escalation, North Korea might be entirely rational to use nuclear weapons first if things got bad enough.
What should the United States do?
Any serious policy demands a dose of reality. Denuclearization and regime change are no longer achievable without risking tens (and potentially hundreds) of thousands of American lives. North Korea has nuclear weapons, benefits from having them, and has no interest in giving them up. Denying this reality is not only delusional, but encourages North Korea to take more belligerent actions, accelerate its nuclear program further, and exacerbate the spiral of escalation.
A better approach would be to seek limited concessions from North Korea in exchange for limited concessions by the United States. For example, as James Acton has proposed, North Korea might agree to eschew missile tests over the territory of South Korea and Japan, if the United States limited flights of B1-B bombers close to North Korean territory. Such a deal would acknowledge that North Korea’s capabilities impose constraints on U.S. foreign policy and grant North Korea benefits. At the same time, it reduces the risks of miscalculations or accidental escalation, diminishing North Korean fears of a surprise attack by the United States, and lending some stability to U.S.-North Korean relations. And if North Korea violated the deal, the U.S. could easily resume those flights……..
Ultimately, there are no free lunches in international politics. If the United States wants North Korea to constrain its nuclear program, it will need to offer North Korea something in exchange. And if the United States tries to pursue regime change or denuclearize North Korea by force, it must accept that North Korean nuclear capabilities allow it to force the United States to pay a high price for doing so. Mark S. Bell is an assistant professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Minnesota. https://warontherocks.com/2017/10/north-korea-benefits-from-nuclear-weapons-get-used-to-it/
Canada is missing its chance to shut the gate on nuclear weapons everywhere The Conversation, MV Ramana, Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia, Lauren Borja, Incoming post-doctoral fellow, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, University of British Columbia, Last month, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (or the Ban Treaty) opened for signatures to all member states at the United Nations. The treaty is a product of sustained activism by civil society and key non-nuclear weapon states.
As researchers who study nuclear policy, we see this development as a landmark in the struggle to eliminate nuclear weapons.
The Ban Treaty would make it illegal for signatories to develop, produce, test, possess, use, threaten to use, or transfer nuclear weapons, among other restrictions.
Within days of being opened for signature, 53 countries have signed the treaty, and three have ratified. After signature and ratification by at least 50 countries, it comes into force.
The Ban Treaty was motivated by a clear recognition that the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons use and testing should be at the forefront of all discussions about these weapons. Dr. Tilman Ruff, co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear Wartestified at the United Nations in March: “An understanding of what nuclear weapons do invalidates all arguments for continued possession of these weapons and requires that they urgently be prohibited and eliminated as the only course of action commensurate with the existential danger they pose.”
The Ban Treaty, therefore, represents a shift in nuclear arms control, away from talking about nuclear weapons in terms of security and deterrence to focusing on the horrendous consequences of nuclear warfare.
This shift is reflected in the language of the Preamble of the Treaty which highlights concerns that the “catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons” would “transcend national borders” and “pose grave implications for human survival.” The Treaty also posits that “complete” elimination “remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances.”
Canada abandons traditional arms control emphasis
An emphasis on the humanitarian consequences, however, is not unique within arms control. Other forms of warfare, such as land mines, biological and chemical weapons, have also been outlawed because of such concerns. And such humanitarian concerns have often guided Canada’s diplomacy in the past, as illustrated by its leading role in the appropriately named Ottawa Convention to ban landmines……….
Looking ahead on nuclear disarmament
There has been widespread political support within Canada for being more active in furthering nuclear disarmament. In 2010, both the Senate and House of Commons unanimously adopted a resolution encouraging the Government of Canada “to engage in negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention” and “deploy a major worldwide Canadian diplomatic initiative in support of preventing nuclear proliferation and increasing the rate of nuclear disarmament.” The dynamic set off by the Ban Treaty offers a suitable opening for launching such an initiative.
In April of this year, Chrystia Freeland issued the following statement to mark the 20th anniversary of the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention: “Twenty years ago today, the international community was united in denouncing the use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere, under any circumstance.”
The health ramifications of the tests are unknown. Lisa Martino-Taylor, an associate professor of sociology at St. Louis Community College who wrote “Behind the Fog: How the U.S. Cold War Radiological Weapons Program Exposed Innocent Americans,” acknowledged that tracing diseases like cancer to specific causes is difficult.
But three congressmen who represent areas where testing occurred — Democrats William Lacy Clay of Missouri, Brad Sherman of California and Jim Cooper of Tennessee — said they were outraged by the revelations.
Martino-Taylor used Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain previously unreleased documents, including army records. She also reviewed already public records and published articles. In an interview, she said she found that a small group of researchers, aided by leading academic institutions, worked to develop radiological weapons and later “combination weapons” using radioactive materials along with chemical or biological weapons.
Her book, published in August, was a follow-up to her 2012 dissertation that found the government conducted secret testing of zinc cadmium sulfide in a poor area of St. Louis in the 1950s and 1960s. The book focuses on the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s.
An army spokeswoman declined comment, but Martino-Taylor’s 2012 report on testing in St. Louis was troubling enough to spur an army investigation. The investigation found no evidence that the St. Louis testing posed a health threat.
Martino-Taylor said the offensive radiological weapons program was a top priority for the government. Unknowing people at places across the U.S. as well as parts of England and Canada were subjected to potentially deadly material through open-air spraying, ingestion and injection, Martino-Taylor said.
“They targeted the most vulnerable in society in most cases,” Martino-Taylor said. “They targeted children. They targeted pregnant women in Nashville. People who were ill in hospitals. They targeted wards of the state. And they targeted minority populations.”
The tests in Nashville in the late 1940s involved giving 820 poor and pregnant white women a mixture during their first pre-natal visit that included radioactive iron, Martino-Taylor said. The women were chosen without their knowledge. Blood tests were performed to determine how much radioactive iron had been absorbed by the mother, and the babies’ blood was tested at birth. Similar tests were performed in Chicago and San Francisco, Martino-Taylor said.
Cooper’s office plans to seek more information from the Army Legislative Liaison, said spokesman Chris Carroll.
“We are asking for details on the Pentagon’s role, along with any cooperation by research institutions and other organizations,” Carroll said. “These revelations are shocking, disturbing and painful.”
In California, investigators created a radiation field inside a building at North Hollywood High School during a weekend in the fall of 1961, Martino-Taylor said. Similar testing was performed at the University of California, Los Angeles and at a Los Angeles Police Department building.
Sherman said he wants a survey of people who graduated from the school around the time of the testing to see if there was a higher incidence of illness, including cancer. He also said he will seek more information from the Department of Energy.
“What an incredibly stupid, reckless thing to do,” said Sherman, whose district includes North Hollywood High School.
Among those who recall the testing is Mary Helen Brindell, 73. She was playing baseball in a St. Louis street in the mid-1950s when a squadron of green planes flew so low overhead that she could see the face of the lead pilot. Suddenly, the children were covered in a fine powdery substance that stuck to skin moistened by summer sweat.
Brindell has suffered from breast, thyroid, skin and uterine cancers. Her sister died of a rare form of esophageal cancer.
“I just want an explanation from the government,” Brindell said. “Why would you do that to people?”
Clay said he was angered that Americans were used as “guinea pigs” for research.
“I join with my colleagues to demand the whole truth about this testing and I will reach out to my Missouri Delegation friends on the House Armed Services Committee for their help as well,” Clay said in a statement.
St. Louis leaders were told at the time that the government was testing a smoke screen that could shield the city from aerial observation in case of Soviet attack. Evidence now shows radioactive material, not just zinc cadmium sulfide, was part of that spraying, Martino-Taylor said.
Doris Spates, 62, was born in 1955 on the 11th floor of the Pruitt-Igoe low-income high-rise where the army sprayed material from the roof. Her father died suddenly three months after her birth. Four of her 11 siblings died from cancer at relatively young ages. She survived cervical cancer and suffers from skin and breathing problems.
“It makes me angry,” Spates said. “It is wrong to do something like that to people who don’t have any knowledge of it.”
According to Martino-Taylor, other testing in Chicago; Berkeley, California; Rochester, New York; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, involved injecting people with plutonium-239.
She said her book shines a light on the team of mostly young scientists tasked with developing radiological weapons. They worked in a closed world with virtually no input from anyone “who could say, ‘This isn’t right,’ or put some sort of moral compass on it,” she said.
She hopes her book prompts more people to investigate.
“We haven’t gotten any answers so far,” Martino-Taylor said. “I think there’s a lot more to find out.”
Are Trump’s tweets undercutting U.S. diplomacy? Beyond apparent policy disagreements between the president and Rex Tillerson, the State Department struggles to absorb mixed signals. The Atlantic, KRISHNADEV CALAMUR 3 OCT 17, President Trump’s tweets Sunday, declaring it a waste of time to try to negotiate with North Korea, appeared to contradict the sentiments of his own chief diplomat, who is at least formally taking the lead on the administration’s North Korea policy. It wasn’t the first time the two men seemed to express different positions on significant foreign-policy issues. But there’s a deeper story beyond whatever temperamental or policy gulf may exist between Trump and Tillerson as individuals—and that is how the contradictions affect the sprawling foreign-policy apparatus Tillerson is supposed to run.
“One can never be sure whether the policies we’re working on will be supported by the president or not,” a State Department official, who was not authorized to speak to the press and asked for anonymity, told me. “It creates a great deal of uncertainty and obviously further harms morale in an environment in which morale is already very low.”……
at the State Department, reports about poor morale have abounded since Tillerson assumed his position in February. The secretary was described as aloof, his plans to reorganize the State Department were criticized, and the Trump administration’s proposal to cut the department’s budget by 30 percent was met with horror. A hiring freeze at the department, combined with the fact that most of the senior positions requiring Senate confirmation are still vacant, have also resulted in multiple news reports about dysfunction.
Added to all this is the perception that Trump doesn’t care about the work the State Department is doing. The president has not only appeared to contradict Tillerson publicly on Qatar, NATO, and Iran—besides North Korea—he has also appeared to suggest that his “America First” message is not simpatico with multilateral cooperation with America’s traditional allies.
At one point, he thanked Russia for its expulsion of U.S. diplomats in retaliation for a similar step by the Obama administration, as well as its seizure of Russian compounds in the U.S., because, in Trump’s words, “we’re trying to cut down our payroll.”…..https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/trump-tillerson/541671/
Will these rockets be powered by plutonium? And if so, what happens if there’s an accident, and one plunges into a city?
LANL engineer looks for partners for cheap space flight, LA Monitor, By Tris DeRoma, October 2, 2017
Joseph Archer wants to start a company to take ordinary citizens into space With all the millions of dollars spent on space tourism today, the Los Alamos National Laboratory radiological safety employee has a plan to do it more efficiently, and cheaper.
His first step is to get a group of investors together who are genuinely enthusiastic and interested in the idea…..The project will involve launching a one-ton payload into space within a year of the company’s formation. He estimates he could do it for an amount between $200,000-$600,000.
“As a group of retired professional and technical types, there is little doubt that we can accomplish such a modest objective,” he said in his statement……..
In his argument, he talks a lot about how the Germans were able to accomplish much with little when they built the V-2 rocket in World War II.
One Los Alamos resident, Alan Hack, said in a letter to the Los Alamos Monitor that there was a huge difference between the wartime German program and what’s happening today in civilian space travel.
“Comparing costs to manufacture the V-1 ignores that it was built by slave labor from the captured countries as the Nazi regime did not have enough German labor to meet the huge demands for war production. Your manned rocket cannot be as cheap as you estimate,” Hack said…..http://www.lamonitor.com/content/lanl-engineer-looks-partners-cheap-space-flight
The Energy 202: Rick Perry manages to unite oil, gas, wind and solar — against him, WP By Dino GrandoniOctober 3
As he did nearly a year ago to win the presidency, Donald Trump has done the seemingly impossible and brought together disparate coalitions of unlikely interests. This week, it happened again when Trump managed to unite an unlikely band of fossil-fuel and renewable-energy advocates.
These 11 energy associations are working together. Together, that is, against the Trump administration’s latest energy policy directive.
On Monday, a coalition of 11 energy lobbying groups asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to delay issuing and enforcing a new rule issued by the Energy Department. EnergySecretary Perry had asked for FERC to streamline the rulemaking process but the groups want time to weigh in during the traditional comment period.
The coalition attracted some strange bedfellows, including renewable-energy lobbyists such as the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association and oil and gas heavyweights such as the Natural Gas Supply Association and the American Petroleum Institute……..
In a letter and proposed regulation, Perry asked FERC to consider issuing new rules to ensure that nuclear and coal-fired plants are compensated not only for the electricity they provide to homes and businesses, but for the reliability they add to the grid…….
What the groups have on their side: While technically housed under the Energy Department, FERC is an independent agency. In the case of Perry’s recommendations, the 5-member commission has the leeway to accept or reject them wholesale. By allowing no more than three commissioners to be from the same party, the commission is supposedly untethered from party influence.
Opposition mounts to radioactive waste near Ottawa River NEWS Oct 02, 2017 by Derek Dunn Arnprior Chronicle-Guide The number of groups and individuals opposed to a planned radioactive waste disposal facility near the Ottawa River continues to mount.
A recent letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by 35 scientists, doctors, elected officials, and leaders of public interest groups and First Nations, urges him to “stand up for the health and safety of Canadians” by suspending what opponents call a giant surface mound about a kilometre from the river.
Multinational corporations have formed Canadian National Energy Alliance to build the disposal facility in Chalk River. It would house contaminated materials from more than 100 buildings on the nuclear laboratories site. It would also contain a small volume of mixed waste from offsite sources.
For 90 years there has been nuclear activity on the shores of the Ottawa, with no solution in place for permanently safeguarding the radioactive waste that is continuously generated. The five-storey high mound would contain mostly low-level waste, starting in 2020, taking up to 1 million cubic metres of waste by 2070.
However, groups like Ottawa Riverkeeper and Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, worry about leachate from the site making its way into the drinking water for 1 million people.
……McNab/Braeside Coun. Mark MacKenzie, a former Green Party of Canada president, has attended several meetings on the topic. He has also looked closely at the issues involved.
“I’ve got a lot of concerns about it,” MacKenzie said. “That it’s not deep underground tops the list.”
He said by calling it a “near surface” facility, the alliance is attempting to deceive.
The project also doesn’t conform to international standards, he added. And that while only one per cent of the waste is considered of medium level, it will persist for hundreds of thousands of years.
“Any percentage above ground that is supposed to be underground is too much.”
The landfill-grade liner proposed is also a concern, he said. It will eventually break down.
Then there are the players involved: SNC-Lavalin is in court for fraud and corruption; others are British and U.S., hence “not here for the long haul,” MacKenzie said. He said nuclear waste is a Government of Canada problem, not for private corporations.
growth in China and India likely won’t be enough to save the global nuclear industry. A report by S&P Global Ratings estimates half of the 99 nuclear reactors currently operating in the United States could be taken offline in the next 17 years. That’s the equivalent of shutting all nuclear reactors in France or Japan — the second- and third-largest atomic powered countries, respectively, by installed capacity. The report thinks America could be nuclear-free by 2055.
Worse, changing political tides in Japan don’t look favorable for nuclear power.
While there’s much uncertainty about where Cameco will be in five years, the current trend doesn’t look very favorable.Investors beware.
Where Will Cameco Corporation Be in 5 Years? Most of the uranium miner’s supply contracts expire by 2021. What happens after that?, The Motley Fool Maxx Chatsko, Oct 3, 2017 The world’s largest uranium miner has been reeling in a long, drawn-out state of misery since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011. Many industrialized nations have revisited their long-term power-generation strategies to include a future without atomic energy. The rise of emission-free wind and solar energy, which continues to outpace even the most optimistic projections, makes it even easier to envision a world with diminishing reliance on nuclear power.
None of that has stopped Cameco Corp (NYSE:CCJ) bulls or management from predicting a brighter future ahead. The company has slashed operations and kept a remarkably healthy balance sheet throughout uranium’s multiyear slide as a global commodity. While it appears to be making all of the right moves today, every day the company inches closer to an existential line in the sand: the year 2021.
That is the year most of its supply contracts expire. Given the current uncertainty surrounding nuclear power, investors shouldn’t be so sure the next round of renewals will be executed in a shareholder-friendly manner. That leads us to ask, where will Cameco Corp be in five years?
The coming contract cliff
Historically speaking, Cameco has managed its portfolio of long-term supply contracts very well. That has insulated the company from the recent downturn in uranium selling prices. For instance, while spot prices are at 12-year lows today, the uranium miner realized a 60% premium to that for every pound sold last year.
The reason is simple: Power companies were locked into higher prices when current contracts were signed. Although fortuitous today, these same forces may also prove problematic moving forward. Why? Uranium prices have trended down, while the uncertainty surrounding the future of nuclear power has trended up. The result: Power companies are hesitant to sign new contracts today out of fear they’ll be locked into higher-than-market prices in future periods……..
all of the projections on which Cameco bases its argument could prove disastrously incorrect. Unfortunately for shareholders, every new data point that comes in seems to hint that may be closer to reality……
growth in China and India likely won’t be enough to save the global nuclear industry. A report by S&P Global Ratings estimates half of the 99 nuclear reactors currently operating in the United States could be taken offline in the next 17 years. That’s the equivalent of shutting all nuclear reactors in France or Japan — the second- and third-largest atomic powered countries, respectively, by installed capacity. The report thinks America could be nuclear-free by 2055.
Worse, changing political tides in Japan don’t look favorable for nuclear power. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe recently dissolved the nation’s lower parliament in an effort to maintain his party’s majority after the general election scheduled for October 22. But in a surprise move, the two largest opposition parties merged into one. A major talking point of the “new” party: making Japan nuclear-free by 2030. Depending on the outcome of the election, the market may know the fate of atomic energy on the island nation well before 2021 — bad news for Cameco’s efforts to renew supply contracts.
Taken together, closing half of American nuclear reactors and all of those in Japan by about 2030 would remove roughly 104 nuclear reactors from operation. Add Germany’s eight nuclear reactors that will be shuttered by 2022, and the world could lose 25% of its nuclear power capacity in the next two decades. Planned additions from China, India, and the rest of the world wouldn’t come close to offsetting the losses……
given the global rise of wind, solar, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) — the last of which is increasingly important to Japan — the days of nuclear power certainly seem to be numbered. Forces both economic and political will be difficult for the industry to overcome.
If additional announcements are made for closures in America or Japan in the near future, it could jeopardize the company’s efforts to sign new long-term supply contracts to replace those that expire in 2021. While there’s much uncertainty about where Cameco will be in five years, the current trend doesn’t look very favorable. Investors beware. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/03/where-will-cameco-corporation-be-in-5-years.aspx
Nuclear – Power The Extraordinary – New Ad Campaign Touting Marvels of Atomic Technology, Forbes, Rod Adams, 30 Sept 17,The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) announced in early September that was starting a new advertising campaign with completely reimagined creative materials.Using the general tagline of “Nuclear. Power the Extraordinary” the U.S. nuclear industry’s trade organization will be speaking “to the critical role that nuclear technology plays in our lives. With dramatic visuals, the new campaign captures the far-reaching benefits that nuclear technology brings to air quality, economic vitality, public health and exploration of new worlds.”……..
Since taking over as NEI’s President and CEO last year, Maria Korsnick has emphasized the importance of taking a new approach to maximizing nuclear energy’s “immense potential.” She has stressed the need for the industry to advocate for itself.
“I am truly passionate about the role that nuclear energy can play for our nation and the world. I consider it the unsung hero of our energy mix…My focus is to get nuclear energy recognized as an essential part of the nation’s industrial and electrical infrastructure.”……..
Trump says North Korea talks are ‘waste of time’ President contradicts Tillerson’s statement that lines of communication are open Ft.com by Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington, 2 Oct 17 Donald Trump dismissed the prospect of talks with Pyongyang as pointless barely a day after his secretary of state said the US was using new channels of communication to weigh the possibility of negotiations with North Korea about its nuclear programme. “I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man,” Mr Trump tweeted on Sunday morning. “Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!”.
In a second tweet later in the day, he added: “Being nice to Rocket Man hasn’t worked in 25 years, why would it work now? Clinton failed, Bush failed, and Obama failed. I won’t fail.”
The US president’s interventions came after Mr Tillerson told reporters during a visit to China that Washington had three direct channels of communication with North Korea……..
Richard Haass, president of the US Council on Foreign Relations, slammed Mr Trump for undercutting his secretary of state. “Potus truly misguided here-& SecState should resign,” he tweeted on Sunday. Ian Bremmer, head of Eurasia Group, a risk consultancy, said the president’s comments were the “stupidest tweet on national security I’ve ever seen from a sitting head of state”………
After Mr Trump used a speech at the UN to describe Mr Kim as “Rocket Man . . . on a suicide mission” and threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea, Mr Kim responded by calling the US president a “mentally deranged dotard” while his foreign minister said Pyongyang would consider detonating a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific Ocean…….
To send a strong signal to Mr Kim, the US has been conducting increasingly frequent high-profile exercises around the Korean peninsula, sometimes with Japan and South Korea. Last weekend, US warplanes flew farther north from the demilitarised zone — that separates South and North Korea — than at any point in the 21st century. In combination with the military warnings, Washington is leading a global campaign to ratchet up economic pressure on North Korea in an effort to squeeze the regime, cut off funding for weapons programmes, and force Pyongyang to the negotiating table. The UN has recently imposed two sets of harsh sanctions that — combined with previous measures — embargo 90 per cent of North Korean exports. The US has also imposed unilateral sanctions and has punished Chinese and Russian companies that have been accused of facilitating weapons development in North Korea.https://www.ft.com/content/cd2087a0-a5f1-11e7-ab55-27219df83c97 Follow Demetri Sevastopulo on Twitter: @dimi
Donald Trump to reward ‘reliable’ coal, nuclear power plants, THE AUSTRALIAN , TIMOTHY PUKO, The Wall Street Journal
The Trump administration is urging independent energy regulators to change how electricity is priced, proposing new rules that would bolster revenue for coal-fired and nuclear power plants.
The Energy Department is mandating that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission consider new rules that would effectively raise power prices to pay more to plants considered more resilient. The department suggests nuclear and coal-fired plants as potential recipients, and charges FERC with tweaking electricity markets so they give more of a reward to plants that have at least three months of fuel on site and can run uninterrupted through extreme weather, disasters or other emergencies.
Nuclear and coal-burning technologies were probably the only ones able to meet the requirements, experts said. Under the proposal, eligible plants would get paid enough to cover their costs and a “fair return on equity” whenever they run, even though they sell into competitive markets.
FERC, which regulates wholesale power markets, is under no obligation to make these changes, only to consider them. FERC officials were reviewing the proposal, a spokeswoman said. Any changes made would likely be implemented by the grid operators that run deregulated power markets under FERC’s oversight.
This type of intervention from the Energy Department is rare, according to energy lawyers and analysts. It appeared the department hadn’t made a similar request since 1979 when, at the height of that decade’s oil crisis, it encouraged FERC to help transition the country to natural gas and away from fuel oil, said David Doot, a lawyer at Day Pitney, which has been researching the topic.
The move is the administration’s latest attempt to support fossil-fuel businesses. It has worked to roll back or delay rules its officials say were unwieldy and unfair attempts by the Obama administration to promote renewable power.
But environmentalists and other critics see the trend as a political effort to follow up a Trump presidential campaign heavy on promises to the fossil-fuel industry and denials of climate change. Some critics claimed it was a bailout for failing nuclear and coal businesses, and criticised the proposal for blocking out options like batteries and smart-grid technologies that also could increase reliability.
Nuclear and coal-fired plants have become an urgent target because dozens have closed nationwide and others are threatened. Those plants, often referred to as baseload, have been the country’s primary source of power for decades, raising questions about how reliably the nation’s grid would function if those plants shrink to become only a minor source of power……
Nuclear Shutdown News chronicles the decline and fall of the nuclear power industry in the US and abroad and highlights the efforts of those who are working for a nuclear free world. Here is our September 217 report.
As Hurricanes Batter the Caribbean and Southeast US, Nuke Plants in Texas And Florida Refuse To Shut Down, Heightening Risk To Already Devastated Communities.
On September 19 the Austin (TX) American-Statesman ran this story “South Texas Project stayed open during Hurricane Harvey.” South Texas Project is a nuclear plant with two reactors near Bay City, TX on the Gulf Coast, 90 miles from Houston.It has been operating since the late 1980s. Austin Energy is one of three utilities that owns it.
The newspaper article’s subtitle was “Some question decision to keep Texas nuclear plant open during Harvey.”
The American Statesman reported, “An evacuation of surrounding areas and flooding fears kept the plant’s storm crew in the plant for nine days.” But management had planned for a stay of only three days and the A-E also reported “the Colorado River is only two miles away” and “it was forecast to crest a week after the storm hit.”
Fortunately the floodwaters didn’t reach the plant, so the nuke kept operating at 100%.
But Kathy Hedden, director of Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) told the American-Statesman “the risk wasn’t worth keeping the plant running.” And although winds “topped off at 40 mph–well below the 73 mph that would have triggered mandatory shutdown for the nuke, the paper reported. “tornadoes touched down just miles from the site.”
Kathy Hedden asserted “The South Texas Plant nuclear reactors, 90 miles south of Houston, could have shut down to ensure our health and safety, but instead played radioactive roulette. They prioritized profit and continued operating. Picture a nuclear disaster on top of that.”
The situation was much the same in Florida as Hurricane Flora roared in. Florida Power & Light, owner of the Turkey Point and St. Lucie nuke plants, each with two reactors, was preparing to shut them down during the storm. But when winds fell to less than hurricane force, and the utility wasn’t required by law to take them offline, FPL kept them running full force, except when a faulty valve at one Turkey Point reactor closed it down.
By the way, both reactors at Turkey Point are over 40 years old, as is one of St. Lucie’s.
On September 11 Newsweek reported that FPL had been “operating during Irma although the plant had not met federal safety requirements implemented after Fukushima.”
The Fukushima catastrophe in March 2011 followed a severe earthquake and tsunami, resulting in the meltdown of three of its reactors and a disaster that continues today.
Although nuclear plants produce electricity, they are also dependent on outside sources for electrical power as well. If the grid is down, the risk of serious accidents can increase.Newsweek consulted two nuclear experts on this matter.
David Lochbaum is director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The pump room is the Achilles Heel at Turkey Point,” he commented. “Without Cooling Water during an accident, workers must deploy backup to the backup system. At Fukushima workers were unable to accomplish this task in time to prevent the reactor core from overheating.”
And Maggie Gundersen, co-founder of Fairewind Energy and Education, like Lochbaum a former high level nuclear employee, added “”When there’s a possibility to lose power, why would you take the risk of that? That’s just hubris and a hug risk to the population.”
State troubled by Vermont Yankee rubble plan, Vt Digger, By Mike Faher, Oct 1 2017 BRATTLEBORO – State regulators and anti-nuclear activists are taking a stand against a proposal to reuse large amounts of Vermont Yankee’s concrete as fill when the plant is decommissioned.
The latest objections to the so-called “rubblization” plan come from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and the state Public Service Department. Officials want to know whether concrete from the retired nuclear plant is safe for burial on the Vernon property.
“We want to feel comfortable … that the material is truly clean,” said Chuck Schwer, director of the agency’s Waste Management and Prevention Division…….
The restoration of the Vermont Yankee site appears to be the biggest point of contention. At issue is how much NorthStar, after satisfying the NRC’s radiological cleanup requirements, will safely restore the site for future reuse……..
even after decommissioning, Vermont Yankee’s spent fuel will remain on site under 24-hour security surveillance until the federal government develops a central repository for high level nuclear waste.
“I wouldn’t say you wouldn’t be able to live there. I’m just not sure people would want to,” State said.
Whatever the property’s future, NorthStar’s plan to bury rubble on site is coming under intense scrutiny……..
Schwer told the advisory panel that, contrary to Entergy’s claims, the full extent of radiation contamination at Vermont Yankee remains a mystery. And officials say it’s not yet clear how NorthStar will address contamination before crushing and burying the concrete.
Schwer wrote in testimony filed with the utility commission that if tainted concrete is buried, “there is the potential that residual contamination could remain undetected below the surface, spread over time and pose a risk to public health and the environment.”…… https://vtdigger.org/2017/10/01/state-troubled-vermont-yankee-rubble-plan/#.WdFrqI-CzGg
Predicted collapse reignites worker safety concerns at WIPP, Adrian C Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus Sept. 29, 2017 Worker safety could yet again become a concern at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
A rock collapse in a portion of the plant’s underground mine where nuclear waste is permanently emplaced is expected in four to six weeks.
The collapse is expected in Room 6 of Panel 7 in the underground, which was off limits to workers for at almost a year before a Thursday announcement by the U.S. Department of Energy of a potential collapse.
Since it was sealed, no ground control measures took place in Room 6………
Rick Fuentes, president of the United Steelworkers Union Local 12-9477, which represents WIPP waste handlers, said the mine is safe for now.
But Fuentes worried that the underground can be unpredictable, and a collapse could occur sooner than expected.
“We’re not going to take any chances,” Fuentes said. “The underground is unpredictable. It could move faster.”……..
“When you deal with mother nature, it’s hard to know what will happen,” Fuentes said. “Day in and day out we have to stay on our A-game to ensure workers are safe.”
When measurements show the ground is unstable or if stability deteriorates at a dangerous rate, Fuentes said all underground activity will cease until conditions become safe.
An Obscure Statute Is Helping Trump Save U.S. Coal, Nuclear, Bloomberg ,By Catherine Traywick and Jim Polson
Rule would allow certain plants to recover operating costs
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has 60 days to respond
The Trump administration is taking advantage of an obscure 30-year-old statute to make good on a promise to help America’s ailing coal industry
Rick Perry is using an authority granted to him as U.S. energy secretary to call on the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to change its rules and help coal and nuclear plants compete in wholesale power markets. Perry said he’s seeking to ensure dependable power plants recover “a fair rate of return.” Those capable of storing 90 days of fuel supplies at their sites, such as coal and nuclear generators, would be eligible.
The move underscores the Trump administration’s determination to aid fossil fuels and rescue money-losing coal and nuclear power plants that have seen their profits squeezed by cheaper natural gas and renewables. Federal Register filings show a U.S. energy secretary hasn’t used this authority to direct the energy commission’s work since at least 1994……..
The energy commission, an independent agency under the Energy Department, has authority over power markets, though the energy secretary may propose rules to the commission. Perry is seeking final action within 60 days.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman vowed on Friday to fight the proposal, saying it “puts the interests of special interests ahead of the health, safety, and wallets of New Yorkers.”
The American Petroleum Institute said it was concerned that the Energy Department had “mischaracterized” the lessons learned from severe weather events that have taken down power resources in the U.S. in the past.
“We need to be careful that government doesn’t put its thumb on the scale,” said Marty Durbin, executive vice president at the institute, which represents oil and gas producers. “It’s better to let markets choose.”
Tell Congress: Prevent Nuclear Catastrophe in Iran
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
