nuclear-news

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

Palestine Talks | Medea Benjamin

October 10, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

DoE awards next-gen nuclear fuel contracts backwards

‘Deconversion’ can begin now, but initial enrichment, transportation and storage to processors is still TBD

Brandon Vigliarolo, Tue 8 Oct 2024 /

The US Department of Energy has awarded shares of an $800 million contract for advanced nuclear fuel deconversion to four companies, but it’s unclear who will be in charge of getting refined fuel to those deconversion sites.

High-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, is needed for nuclear reactor designs like small modular reactors (SMRs), molten salt reactors and other new variations that are supposed to be safer and more efficient. Unlike traditional nuclear fuel, which contains up to 5 percent uranium-235 (the isotope that’s used to power nuclear power plants), HALEU includes a large proportion of the fissile isotope (as much as 20 percent). 

Unfortunately for American nuclear interests, HALEU production at scale is only really happening in two unfriendly countries: Russia and China. That situation has already caused delays for nuclear power projects like the Bill Gates-backed TerraPower plant in Wyoming. 

With the DoE forecasting an annual need for 40 metric tons of the stuff per year by the end of the decade, the US has a serious need for US-made HALEU. The four deals announced Friday between the DoE and Global Nuclear Fuel – Americas, Nuclear Fuel Services, American Centrifuge Operating and Framatome for HALEU deconversion services will hopefully help do just that. 

HALEU deconversion, which is conducted after the initial enrichment stage to ensure fuel has reached appropriate levels of U-235, turns enriched uranium hexafluoride gas into oxide, metal and other mineral forms usable as fuel. The DoE initially proposed the deconversion funding in October of last year. 

Step 1: ???

Each company is guaranteed $2 million in funding at a minimum to deconvert and store HALEU fuel within the US, but whether they’ll be able to reach scale is another thing altogether.

As we’ve noted previously, American Centrifuge Operating was the only company in the United States creating HALEU fuel, which it only began doing late last year, producing the US’s first HALEU, but only 20 kilograms of it. 

October 10, 2024 Posted by | USA | Leave a comment

Israel Planning Major Attack on Iran

 The US is coordinating with Israel on its plans.

by Dave DeCamp,  October 2, 2024,  https://news.antiwar.com/2024/10/02/israel-planning-major-attack-on-iran/#gsc.tab=0

Israel is planning to launch a “significant retaliation” attack against Iran over the Iranian missile barrage that targeted Israel on Tuesday, which was a response to several Israeli escalations in the region. Israeli officials acknowledged to Axios that the situation could lead to a full-blown regional war, which would involve the US.

According to the Axios report, Israel could target oil production facilities inside Iran or other strategic sites. Israeli officials say that if Iran hits back, then all options will be on the table, including strikes on Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities.

“We have a big question mark about how the Iranians are going to respond to an attack, but we take into consideration the possibility that they would go all in, which will be a whole different ball game,” an Israeli official told Axios.

Other options being considered are attacks on Iran’s air defenses or targeted assassinations. Israel has a history of killing people inside Iran, including the July 31 assassination of Hamas’s political chief, Ismail Haniyeh.

Israel would likely need US military support to launch significant strikes on Iranian territory, and the Israeli officials speaking to Axios say they are coordinating with the Biden administration. Israel wants more US support if it provokes another Iranian attack.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said Tuesday that the US would work with Israel to ensure Iran faces “severe consequences.” President Biden has also said he is working with Israel on a response but said Wednesday that he wouldn’t support strikes on Iran’s nuclear facility.

“All seven of us agree that they have a right to respond, but they have to respond proportionally,” he said, referring to the Group of Seven nations. He said G7 leaders agreed to impose new sanctions on Iran, which will have little impact since Iran is already under so many.

Israel acknowledged on Wednesday that Iranian missiles made an impact on several military bases but claimed there was no significant damage. Israel is also claiming there were no major casualties, with only two Israelis suffering minor injuries. One Palestinian was killed in the Israeli-occupied West Bank when shrapnel from an intercepted missile hit him.

Iran fired about 180 ballistic missiles at Israel in response to the Israeli assassination of Haniyeh in Tehran and the Israeli killing of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and Abbas Nilforoushan, an IRGC commander who was killed alongside Nasrallah.

October 9, 2024 Posted by | Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Fulsome bribery to communities – from Canada’s  Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)

Frank Greening, 7 Oct 24

Canada’s  Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is using offers of money – and I’m talking about a lot of money in the millions of dollars range – to “persuade” local individuals or groups to vote in favor of constructing a DGR on their land. For example, consider the announcement by the township of Ignace after it agreed to allow NWMO to construct a used fuel DGR on its land:

There are of course many benefits to hosting the DGR in the area and these benefits will exceed the $170 Million monitory value of this agreement plus the cost of the Centre of Expertise, and thousands of dollars in housing, infrastructure, and capacity building studies to build the Township over the course of many years.

As we all know, NWMO is fond of saying that it will only proceed with the construction of a DGR at a particular location if there is a “willing host”. Now the dictionary definition of “willing” implies a readiness and eagerness to accede to or anticipate the wishes of another person or group. However, I’m sure if you asked the people of Ignace if they were ready and eager to host a DGR in their town, without any compensation or inducement, the answer would be a resounding NO! However, throw $170 million into the pot and everything changes! So, it’s obvious that the notion of “willingness” really means “a willingness to be bribed”.

Now some might argue that my use of the word bribe is too strong – dare I say offensive – but consider the dictionary definition of bribe: To give someone money or something else of value, to persuade that person to do something you want.  In this case “you” means the NWMO, and what NWMO “wants” is a township’s approval of a DGR. I would argue, however, that the true meaning of willingness is acceptance without inducement!

I believe that NWMO know full well that, as the saying goes, “money talks”, and NWMO appears to have plenty of money to talk unwilling hosts into becoming willing hosts. In this regard, consider the opinion of a certain James Kimberly as expressed in his letter to the Fort Francis Times, dated December 6th, 2023:

The NWMOs proposed budget for 2023 is $162 million dollars. Projections to 2026 increase their budget to $299.8 million dollars increasing on average $40 million dollars per year. Their budget is broken into eight categories; engineering, site assessment, safety, regulatory decisions, engagement, transportation, communications, staffing and administration. All of the money the NWMO spends in their budget is derived from the public – people who pay the electricity bills. The interesting thing about their budget projection is the amount of money dedicated to the different activities.

Second to staffing and administration the next major expenditure is what they call “engagement”. There are no specific details on what “engagement” entails but I think one could safely state it is getting the public on side for their proposed dump. The engagement portion of their budget in 2023 is $47.8 million rising to $81.9 million by 2026. Other parts of their budget such as engineering, site assessment and safety come in at much lower costs literally a fraction of the staffing and engagement dollars.

According to NWMO’s projections over the next five years they will spend $359.3 million dollars of public money in trying to convince people their plan will work and that is just a part of their bottomless pit of money…..

So, I’m sure we can continue to present endless technical arguments against NWMOs plans to build a DGR, and I believe we are doing the right thing because we have the moral high-ground, but how can such arguments compete with NWMO’s bottomless pit of money?

and …….  it looks like Ignace is being short-changed!

Check out the South Bruce Hosting Agreement:

Click to access Council-Considers-Hosting-Agreement.pdf

South Bruce stands to receive a stunning $418 million if it signs NWMO’s Hosting Agreement, (tabled in May of this year), and due to be voted on October 28th.

I would say, to quote a famous Mafia line, NWMO is making an offer South Bruce residents can’t refuse…

October 8, 2024 Posted by | Canada, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

US’ next-gen nuclear submarines suffer delay with costs soaring past $130 billion.

The US Navy’s next-generation nuclear submarines face delays and rising costs, surpassing $130 billion.

Interesting Engineering, Bojan Stojkovski Oct 05, 2024 

A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan watchdog that reviews government operations for Congress, highlighted problems with the construction of the new submarines.

The GAO noted that both cost and schedule targets for the lead submarine have consistently been missed, according to the report released on Monday, Gizmodo reported.

“Our independent analysis calculated likely cost overruns that are more than six times higher than Electric Boat’s estimates and almost five times more than the Navy’s. As a result, the government could be responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in additional construction costs for the lead submarine,” the GAO said in its report.Re-Timer and cold plasma, the best of IE this week

Navy plans to replace aging Ohio-class subs 

The country’s nuclear weapons are deployed through three methods: intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from silos, bombs dropped from strategic bombers, and missiles fired from stealth submarines. …………………………………………………………………..

General Dynamics Electric Boat is currently building the first Columbia-class submarine, but the construction is facing significant challenges. According to the GAO report, the program has struggled with ongoing issues such as delays in materials and design products, despite efforts over the years to address these problems. The report also stated that swift and substantial action is needed to improve the construction performance.

Submarine construction faces skilled labor shortages

Some of the challenges are systemic, as there are few skilled workers in the US capable of building nuclear submarines. Between the 1980s and 2020, the submarine supplier base, which provides critical parts and materials, has drastically reduced from around 17,000 suppliers to just 3,500. 

This has led Columbia-class shipbuilders to increasingly depend on single-source suppliers, limiting competition for contracts, according to the GAO.

As Defense One writes, the Navy and shipbuilders provide “supplier development funding” to support these critical suppliers. This funding is divided into two categories: “direct investments in suppliers,” which cover expenses like equipment, factory upgrades, and workforce development, and “specialized purchases to signal demand,” which involve placing orders to ensure that suppliers remain capable and motivated to produce, even when their products are not immediately required.

However, the GAO found that the Navy has not adequately assessed whether its financial investments in the supplier base are being utilized effectively. The GAO report outlined that the Navy has inconsistently defined the necessary information to evaluate whether these investments have led to increased production or cost savings and how these outcomes align with the program’s objectives  https://interestingengineering.com/military/us-nuclear-submarines-delayed-exceeding-costs

October 8, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nuclear Waste Storage Site in Texas Draws Supreme Court Review

by Bloomberg, Greg Stohr, Saturday, October 05, 2024 https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/nuclear_waste_storage_site_in_texas_draws_supreme_court_review-05-oct-2024-178321-article/

The US Supreme Court will consider reviving a plan to store as much as 40,000 tons of highly radioactive waste at a temporary west Texas site, accepting a case that could be a turning point after decades of wrangling over spent fuel from the nation’s commercial reactors.

Agreeing to hear appeals from the Biden administration and the joint venture that would build and run the facility, the justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission lacked authority to issue a crucial license.

The above-ground site outside the town of Andrews in the Permian Basin oil field would be the first of its kind, designed to take waste from commercial reactors around the country until a long-running fight over a permanent storage location is resolved. 

The plan has the backing of the nuclear power industry. It’s opposed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott and a coalition of landowners and oil and gas operators who call the planned facility a public-health hazard.

In its appeal, the Biden administration said the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upended more than 40 years of NRC practice by concluding the Atomic Energy Act didn’t authorize the license. The decision put the 5th Circuit, perhaps the country’s most conservative federal appeals court, in conflict with other appellate panels.

The ruling “disrupts the nuclear-power industry by categorically prohibiting the commission from approving offsite storage of spent fuel, despite the agency’s longstanding issuance of such licenses,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued. She also contends that Texas and other opponents lack the legal right to challenge the decision in court.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton urged the justices not to hear the case. He said federal law expressly requires the nation’s nuclear waste to be stored at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, where efforts to build a facility have been scuttled by local opposition.


“Congress specified that the nation would dispose of its nuclear waste at a government-owned facility at Yucca Mountain,” Paxton argued. “By no means can the commission solve its Yucca Mountain problem by disregarding clear statutory language.”

Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd., which owns hundreds of thousands of acres in the Permian Basin, told the justices that the NCR has never authorized a comparable facility, saying that existing temporary storage sites are either owned by the government, located on the sites of decommissioned reactors or in one case set up a half-mile from a working reactor. 

The company that would run the site, Interim Storage Partners LLC, joined the federal government in urging Supreme Court review. Interim is a joint venture owned by a unit of Orano SA and J.F. Lehman & Co.’s Waste Control Specialists LLC. The joint venture envisions having nuclear waste shipped by rail from around the country and sealed in concrete casks. 

The business-backed Nuclear Energy Institute said the 5th Circuit ruling “will have far-reaching and destabilizing consequences for the nuclear industry if allowed to remain standing.” The group told the justices in court papers that the Texas facility would save the industry more than $600 million as compared to continued onsite storage.


The fight is likely to determine the fate of Holtec International Corp.’s separate planned facility in New Mexico. The 5th Circuit blocked that project in March, pointed to its earlier decision in the Texas case.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments, likely early next year, and rule by early July. 

The cases are Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, 23-1300, and Interim Storage Partners v. Texas, 23-1312. 

October 7, 2024 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Refurbished Three Mile Island Payment Structure Is Not Quite What It Seems

In May Constellation applied for a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee — which coincidentally is precisely the amount of money it plans to invest to restart the shuttered reactor. According to the Washington Post, the taxpayer-backed loan could give Microsoft and Constellation Energy a major boost in their unprecedented bid to steer all the power from a US nuclear plant to a single company.

A loan guarantee would allow Constellation to shift much of the risk of reopening Three Mile Island to taxpayers.

Clean Technica, 4 Oct 24, Steve Hanley

Two weeks ago, the news was filled with reports that Reactor 1 at the Three Mile Island nuclear generating station, which was shut down in 2019, will be refurbished and put back into service for another 20 years or more. Its sole customer will be Microsoft, which needs a lot of electricity to operate its data centers. Reactor 2 is the one that melted down in 1979. It is in the process of being dismantled.

The Three Mile Island facility is currently owned by Constellation Energy, the largest operator of nuclear power plants in America. It told the New York Times it plans to spend $1.6 billion to refurbish Reactor 1 and restart it by 2028, pending regulatory approval. “The symbolism is enormous,” said Joseph Dominguez, chief executive of Constellation. “This was the site of the industry’s greatest failure, and now it can be a place of rebirth.”

Economic Benefits Of Three Mile Island

Local residents and politicians welcome the return of Three Mile Island, which will employ about 600 people when it restarts. “This will transform the local economy and presents a rare opportunity to power our economy with reliable clean energy that we can count on,” said Tom Mehaffie, a Republican state representative whose district includes the plant. “This is a rare and valuable opportunity to invest in clean, carbon-free and affordable power — on the heels of the hottest year in Earth’s history.” A recent poll found that 57% of Pennsylvania residents supported reopening Three Mile Island “as long as it does not include new taxes or increased electricity rates.”

Dominguez was especially proud to announce that Constellation would pay to refurbish the Three Mile Island facility entirely out of its own pocket, and Microsoft would be on the hook for buying electricity from the plant for 20 years. “We’re not asking for a penny from the state or from utility customers,” he said.

There is a lot to unpack here. The demand for electricity is exploding, thanks to cryptomining and AI. Data centers are sucking up vast amounts of electricity, much of it from renewables. That means there is precious little electricity left over to cool our homes and business, power our electric cars, or meet the needs of industries trying to decarbonize their activities. Supplying the crypto and AI sectors with renewable energy threatens to slow or reverse the transition to clean energy for the rest of society. At some point, we may need to ask ourselves just how much crypto and AI we really need.

A $1.6 Billion Federal Loan Guarantee

What Joseph Dominguez failed to mention when he proclaimed that Constellation was not asking for a penny from the state or from utility customers to restart Three Mile Island was that in May it applied for a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee — which coincidentally is precisely the amount of money it plans to invest to restart the shuttered reactor. According to the Washington Post, the taxpayer-backed loan could give Microsoft and Constellation Energy a major boost in their unprecedented bid to steer all the power from a US nuclear plant to a single company. Microsoft is one of many large tech companies scouring the nation for zero emissions power for its data centers and one of the leaders in the field of artificial intelligence.

The plan to restart the shuttered reactor on Three Mile Island has already generated controversy as energy experts debate the merits of providing separate federal subsidies for the project in the form of tax credits. Constellation’s pursuit of the $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee, which has not been previously disclosed, is likely to intensify that debate. The loan guarantee request has cleared an initial review. It has now reached the stage where the specific terms of a deal would ordinarily start to be negotiated, according to the Washington Post. A loan guarantee would allow Constellation to shift much of the risk of reopening Three Mile Island to taxpayers. The federal government, in this case, would pledge to cover up to $1.6 billion if there is a default. The guarantees are typically used by developers to lower the cost of project financing, as lenders are willing to offer more favorable terms when there is federal backing.

Borrowing Costs For Three Mile Island

In this case, the loan guarantee could save Constellation up to $122 million in borrowing costs for restarting Three Mile Island, John Parsons, an energy economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the Post. It would come on top of the federal tax credits on the sale of the power — passed in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 — which could be worth nearly $200 million annually for Constellation and Microsoft. Over 20 years, that comes to a tidy sum — $4 billion to be exact.  Technology companies already benefit from similar tax credits when they purchase energy from a solar or wind farm, but nuclear power plants generate electricity at a higher cost, making the scale of the subsidy larger. Microsoft and Constellation have not released any details about how much the electricity from Three Mile Island will cost.

The Energy Department declined to comment on the application, but Constellation  told the Post it has not decided whether to accept the loan guarantee if one is offered, but claimed that any financial risk for taxpayers would be negligible. “Rest assured that to the extent we may seek a loan, Constellation will guarantee full repayment,” said a statement from the company. “Any notion that taxpayers are taking on risk here is fanciful given that any loan will be backstopped by Constellation’s entire $80-billion-plus value.” If that is so, then why the need for the federal loan guarantee in the first place?

The biggest risk to taxpayers would be if the project were to fail after a significant amount of money is spent trying to get Three Mile Island operational. Such setbacks are common when new nuclear plants are being built. The last new nuclear reactors to go online near Augusta, Georgia, were seven years late and $17 billion over budget. Constellation says it is confident Three Mile Island won’t face such setbacks because the company is restarting an existing unit rather than building a new one from the ground up. Some may view that as wishful thinking, or as my old Irish grandmother liked to say, “There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.”

…………………… Another Kink In The Program

To hear Microsoft and Constellation tell it, every electron generated by the rejuvenated Three Mile Island plant would be used to power Microsoft data centers. That’s not quite how it will work out in practice, however. The electricity from the restarted nuclear reactor will not be connected directly to Microsoft’s data centers. Instead it will flow into the broader power grid that serves 13 states and D.C. As the purchaser of the clean energy, Microsoft can use it to erase — on paper — the emissions from burning gas or coal to produce electricity that does flow into its data centers. Microsoft is among several large tech firms using such accounting methods to brand their data centers climate friendly. CleanTechnica readers are savvy enough to recognize there is great potential for all of this euphoria over Three Mile island to become little more than another corporate greenwashing scheme, one paid for in large part by federal taxpayers.

Some critics question if Constellation is presenting an overly optimistic assessment of how quickly and cheaply a nuclear plant can be restarted. The company said last month that $1.6 billion would cover the full cost of reopening Three Mile Island by 2028. “We have one Big Tech company trying to do something that is not aligned with how the markets should be working, and they want to do it on the backs of ratepayers and taxpayers,” said Evan Caron, co-founder of Montauk Climate, which invests in clean energy technologies.

If there are any cost overruns or delays, Microsoft would probably have the option of abandoning the deal and Constellation would need to find another buyer willing to pay a premium for Three Mile Island power, he said. “This has real risk. I think the likelihood of that plant coming back online by 2028 is low to zero,” Caron said………………….

The Takeaway

There is nothing overtly wrong with the plan to restart Three Mile Island, but when the details are examined, there certainly are some reasons to be skeptical. First, when the company bragged it was putting its own money unto the project, it should have been upfront about the federal loan guarantee. Second, when Microsoft bragged it was increasing the supply of renewable energy to its data centers, it should have been upfront about how the process will actually work. In point of fact, none of the electricity from Three Mile Island may ever be used to power a Microsoft data center. There are carbon offsets and accounting shenanigans at work here, which open the door to chicanery or what some might call “creative accounting.” more https://cleantechnica.com/2024/10/04/refurbished-three-mile-island-payment-structure-is-not-quite-what-it-seems/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFvCNVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcU7hX-pedORjEJ_lcT_tU0Hsy_C2HBPk6pbnMqSpjCnc7SnZtgJeCxCcQ_aem__L52Lun4mpFIcwhpVmUUpw

October 7, 2024 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Inside the State Department’s Weapons Pipeline to Israel

Leaked cables and emails show how the agency’s top officers dismissed internal evidence of Israelis misusing American-made bombs and worked around the clock to rush more out while the Gaza death toll mounted.

ProPublica, by Brett Murphy, Oct. 4, 2024

In late January, as the death toll in Gaza climbed to 25,000 and droves of Palestinians fled their razed cities in search of safety, Israel’s military asked for 3,000 more bombs from the American government. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew, along with other top diplomats in the Jerusalem embassy, sent a cable to Washington urging State Department leaders to approve the sale, saying there was no potential the Israel Defense Forces would misuse the weapons.

The cable did not mention the Biden administration’s public concerns over the growing civilian casualties, nor did it address well-documented reports that Israel had dropped 2,000-pound bombs on crowded areas of Gaza weeks earlier, collapsing apartment buildings and killing hundreds of Palestinians, many of whom were children. Lew was aware of the issues. Officials say his own staff had repeatedly highlighted attacks where large numbers of civilians died. Homes of the embassy’s own Palestinian employees had been targeted by Israeli airstrikes.

Still, Lew and his senior leadership argued that Israel could be trusted with this new shipment of bombs, known as GBU-39s, which are smaller and more precise. Israel’s air force, they asserted, had a “decades-long proven track record” of avoiding killing civilians when using the American-made bomb and had “demonstrated an ability and willingness to employ it in [a] manner that minimizes collateral damage.”

While that request was pending, the Israelis proved those assertions wrong.  In the months that followed, the Israeli military repeatedly dropped GBU-39s it already possessed on shelters and refugee camps that it said were being occupied by Hamas soldiers, killing scores of Palestinians. Then, in early August, the IDF bombed a school and mosque where civilians were sheltering. At least 93 died. Children’s bodies were so mutilated their parents had trouble identifying them.

Weapons analysts identified shrapnel from GBU-39 bombs among the rubble.

In the months before and since, an array of State Department officials urged that Israel be completely or partially cut off from weapons sales under laws that prohibit arming countries with a pattern or clear risk of violations. Top State Department political appointees repeatedly rejected those appeals. 

……………………………….“But it is a question of making judgments,” Blinken said of his agency’s efforts to minimize harm. “We started with the premise on October 7 that Israel had the right to defend itself, and more than the right to defend itself, the right to try to ensure that October 7 would never happen again.”

The embassy’s endorsement and Blinken’s statements reflect what many at the State Department have understood to be their mission for nearly a year. As one former official who served at the embassy put it, the unwritten policy was to “protect Israel from scrutiny” and facilitate the arms flow no matter how many human rights abuses are reported. “We can’t admit that’s a problem,” this former official said.

The embassy has even historically resisted accepting funds from the State Department’s Middle East bureau earmarked for investigating human rights issues throughout Israel because embassy leaders didn’t want to insinuate that Israel might have such problems, according to Mike Casey, a former U.S. diplomat in Jerusalem. “In most places our goal is to address human rights violations,” Casey added. “We don’t have that in Jerusalem.”

Last week, ProPublica detailed how the government’s two foremost authorities on humanitarian assistance — the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department’s refugees bureau — concluded in the spring that Israel had deliberately blocked deliveries of food and medicine into Gaza and that weapons sales should be halted. But Blinken rejected those findings as well and, weeks later, told Congress that the State Department had concluded that Israel was not blocking aid.

The episodes uncovered by ProPublica, which have not been previously detailed, offer an inside look at how and why the highest ranking policymakers in the U.S. government have continued to approve sales of American weapons to Israel in the face of a mounting civilian death toll and evidence of almost daily human rights abuses. This article draws from a trove of internal cables, email threads, memos, meeting minutes and other State Department records, as well as interviews with current and former officials throughout the agency, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The records and interviews also show that the pressure to keep the arms pipeline moving also comes from the U.S. military contractors who make the weapons. Lobbyists for those companies have routinely pressed lawmakers and State Department officials behind the scenes to approve shipments both to Israel and other controversial allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia. When one company executive pushed his former subordinate at the department for a valuable sale, the government official reminded him that strategizing over the deal might violate federal lobbying laws, emails show.

The Biden administration’s repeated willingness to give the IDF a pass has only emboldened the Israelis, experts told ProPublica………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Weapons sales are a pillar of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Historically, the U.S. gives more money to Israel for weapons than it does to any other country. Israel spends most of those American tax dollars to buy weapons and equipment made by U.S. arms manufacturers……………………………………………………………………

There is little sign that either party is prepared to curtail U.S. weapons shipments. ………………………………………………………………………………………

The U.S. gives the Israeli government about $3.8 billion every year and much more during wartime to help maintain its military edge in the region.  Congress and the executive branch have imposed legal guardrails on how Israel and other countries can use the weapons they buy with U.S. money. The State Department must review and approve most of those large foreign military sales and is required to cut off a country if there is a pattern or clear risk of breaking international humanitarian law, …………………

the bulk of that review is conducted by the State Department’s arms transfers section, known as the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, with input from other bureaus. For Israel and NATO allies, if the sale is worth at least $100 million for weapons or $25 million for equipment, Congress also gets final approval. If lawmakers try to block a sale, which is rare, the president can sidestep with a veto.

For years, Josh Paul, a career official in the State Department’s arms transfers bureau, reviewed arms sales to Israel and other countries in the Middle East. Over time, he became one of the agency’s most well-versed experts in arms sales.

Even before Israel’s retaliation for Oct. 7, he had been concerned with Israel’s conduct. On multiple occasions, he said, he believed the law required the government to withhold weapons transfers. In May 2021, he refused to approve a sale of fighter jets to the Israeli Air Force. “At a time the IAF are blowing up civilian apartment blocks in Gaza,” Paul wrote in an email, “I cannot clear on this case.” The following February, he wouldn’t sign off on another sale after Amnesty International published a report accusing Israeli authorities of apartheid.

In both cases, Paul later told ProPublica, his immediate superiors signed off on the sales over his objections……………………………………………………………

 Paul resigned in protest over arms shipments to Israel last October, less than two weeks after the Hamas attack. It was the Biden administration’s first major public departure since the start of the war. By then, local authorities said Israeli military operations had killed at least 3,300 Palestinians in Gaza.

Internally, other experts began to worry the Israelis were violating human rights almost from the onset of the war as well……………………………………………………

. In late December, just before Christmas, staff in the arms transfers bureau walked into their Washington, D.C., office and found something unusual waiting for them: cases of wine from a winery in the Negev Desert, along with personalized letters on each bottle.

The gifts were courtesy of the Israeli embassy………………………………………………

One month later, Lew delivered his endorsement of Israel’s request for the 3,000 precision GBU-39 bombs, which would be paid for with both U.S. and Israeli funds. Lew is a major figure in Democratic circles, having served in various administrations. He was President Barack Obama’s chief of staff and then became his treasury secretary. He has also been a top executive at Citigroup and a major private equity firm.

The U.S. defense attaché to Israel, Rear Adm. Frank Schlereth, signed off on the January cable as well. In addition to its assurances about the IDF, the memo cited the Israeli military’s close ties with the American military: Israeli air crews attend U.S. training schools to learn about collateral damage and use American-made computer systems to plan missions and “predict what effects their munitions will have on intended targets,” the officials wrote.

In the early stages of the war, Israel used American-made unguided “dumb” bombs, some likely weighing as much as 2,000 pounds, which many experts criticized as indiscriminate. But at the time of the embassy’s assessment, Amnesty International had documented evidence that the Israelis had also been dropping the GBU-39s, manufactured by Boeing to have a smaller blast radius, on civilians. Months before Oct. 7, a May 2023 attack left 10 civilians dead. Then, in a strike in early January this year, 18 civilians, including 10 children, were killed. Amnesty International investigators found GBU-39 fragments at both sites. (Boeing declined to comment and referred ProPublica to the government.)

At the time, State Department experts were also cataloging the effect the war has had on American credibility throughout the region. Hala Rharrit, a career diplomat based in the Middle East, was required to send daily reports analyzing Arab media coverage to the agency’s senior leaders. Her emails described the collateral damage from airstrikes in Gaza, often including graphic images of dead and wounded Palestinians alongside U.S. bomb fragments in the rubble.

“Arab media continues to share countless images and videos documenting mass killings and hunger, while affirming that Israel is committing war crimes and genocide and needs to be held accountable,” she reported in one early January email alongside a photograph of a dead toddler. “These images and videos of carnage, particularly of children getting repeatedly injured and killed, are traumatizing and angering the Arab world in unprecedented ways.”

Rharrit, who later resigned in protest, told ProPublica those images alone should have prompted U.S. government investigations and factored into arms requests from the Israelis. She said the State Department has “willfully violated the laws” by failing to act on the information she and others had documented. “They can’t say they didn’t know,” Rharrit added……………………………………………………..

In Israel’s New York consulate, weapons procurement officers occupy two floors, processing hundreds of sales each year. One former Israeli officer who worked there said he tried to purchase as many weapons as possible while his American counterparts tried just as hard to sell them. “It’s a business,” he said.

Behind the scenes, if government officials take too long to process a sale, lobbyists for powerful corporations have stepped in to apply pressure and move the deal along, ProPublica found.

Some of those lobbyists formerly held powerful positions as regulators in the State Department. In recent years, at least six high-ranking officials in the agency’s arms transfers bureau left their posts and joined lobbying firms and military contractors…………………………………………….more https://www.propublica.org/article/israel-gaza-america-biden-administration-weapons-bombs-state-department

October 7, 2024 Posted by | Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

“Hit Iran’s Nuclear Sites First”: Donald Trump’s Advice To Israel

The former president, speaking at a campaign event in North Carolina, referred to a question posed to Democratic President Joe Biden this week about the possibility of Israel targeting Iran’s nuclear program.

Agence France-Presse, Oct 05, 2024,  https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/donald-trump-says-israel-should-hit-irans-nuclear-facilities-6719212

Washington:

Republican White House hopeful Donald Trump said Friday he believes Israel should strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in response to the Islamic republic’s recent missile barrage.

The former president, speaking at a campaign event in North Carolina, referred to a question posed to Democratic President Joe Biden this week about the possibility of Israel targeting Iran’s nuclear program.

“They asked him, what do you think about Iran, would you hit Iran? And he goes, ‘As long as they don’t hit the nuclear stuff.’ That’s the thing you want to hit, right?” Trump told a town hall style event in Fayetteville, near a major US military base.

Biden was asked on Wednesday whether he would support strikes against Iranian nuclear sites and the US president told reporters: “The answer is no.”

“I think he’s got that one wrong,” Trump said Friday, in response to a participant’s question about the issue. “Isn’t that what you’re supposed to hit? I mean, it’s the biggest risk we have, nuclear weapons,” he said.

“When they asked him that question, the answer should have been, hit the nuclear first, and worry about the rest later,” Trump added.

“If they’re going to do it, they’re going to do it. But we’ll find out whatever their plans are.”

Biden on Wednesday expressed his opposition to such strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, in response to the firing of nearly 200 Iranian missiles towards Israel.

We’ll be discussing with the Israelis what they’re going to do,” he said, adding that all G7 members agree Israel has “a right to respond, but they should respond in proportion.”

Trump, locked in a tooth-and-nail presidential election battle with US Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has spoken little about the recent escalation in tensions in the Middle East.

He issued a scathing statement this week, holding Biden and Harris responsible for the crisis.

October 6, 2024 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Corrosion exceeds estimates at Michigan nuclear plant US wants to restart, regulator says

By Timothy Gardner, October 3, 2024, WASHINGTON, Oct 2 (Reuters) –

Holtec, the company wanting to reopen the Palisades nuclear reactor in Michigan, found corrosion cracking in steam generators “far exceeded” estimates, the U.S. nuclear power regulator said in a document published on Wednesday.

President Joe Biden’s administration this week finalized a $1.52 billion conditional loan guarantee to the Palisades plant. It is part of an effort to support nuclear energy, which generates virtually emissions-free power, to curb climate change and to help satisfy rising electricity demand from artificial intelligence, electric vehicles and digital currency.

Palisades, which shut under a different owner in 2022, is seeking to be the first modern U.S. nuclear power plant to reopen after being fully shut.

A summary of an early September call between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Holtec published on Wednesday said indications of stress corrosion cracking in tubes in both of Palisade’s steam generators “far exceeded estimates based on previous operating history.” It found 1,163 steam generator tubes had indications of the stress cracking. There are more than 16,000 tubes in the units.

Steam generators are sensitive components that require meticulous maintenance and are among the most expensive units at a nuclear power station.

Holtec wants to return the plant to operation late next year. Patrick O’Brien, a company spokesperson, said the results of the inspections “were not entirely unpredicted” as the standard system “layup process”, or procedure for maintaining the units, was not followed when the plant went into shutdown…………………….

Holtec still needs permits from the NRC. “Holtec must ensure the generators will meet NRC requirements if the agency authorizes returning Palisades to operational status,” an NRC spokesperson said.

The NRC said last month that preliminary results from inspections “identified a large number of steam generator tubes with indications that require further analysis and/or repair.”

Steam generator issues can pose problems for nuclear power plants. Parts of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California were shut in 2012 after steam generators that had a design flaw leaked. Problems with new generators led to the closure of the plant in 2013. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-report-says-corrosion-michigan-nuclear-plant-above-estimates-2024-10-02/

October 6, 2024 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Construction of Ontario nuclear reactor should move forward despite incomplete design, ! regulator says

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-though-its-design-is-incomplete-nuclear-safety-regulator-says-the/ Matthew McClearn, 4 Oct 24

Canada’s nuclear safety regulator has recommended that the country’s first new power reactor in decades should receive the go-ahead to begin construction, even though its design is not yet complete.

At a hearing Wednesday, staff from Ontario Power Generation argued that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission should grant a licence to construct a 327-megawatt nuclear reactor known as the BWRX-300 at OPG’s Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington, Ont., about 70 kilometres east of Toronto.

he application received unequivocal support from the CNSC’s staff, despite the fact that several safety questions remain unresolved.

“The level of design information needed for CNSC staff to recommend a licence to construct is not the final design, but the information must be sufficient to ensure that the regulations have been met,” Sarah Eaton, the CNSC’s director-general ofits Directorate of Advanced Reactor Technologies, said before the commission.

It would be the first small modular reactor built in a G7 country and among the first globally – although its output would exceedthe informal 300-megawatt cutoff for SMRs.

The BWRX-300 is currently being developed by U.S. vendor GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. Someaspects of its design are based on the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR), which was licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2014 but never built. The CNSC said the 1,600-megawattESBWR underwent significant testing that is “mostly applicable” to its smaller cousin.

OPG, which submitted its application two years ago, is seeking a 10-year licence andplans to build three additional BWRX-300s at Darlington.

A second part of the CNSC hearing, scheduled for January, will hear interventions from the public, including Indigenous communities. OPG has already partly prepared the site – building roads and moving earth – under an earlier licence granted by the CNSC.

David Tyndall, OPG’s vice-president of new nuclear engineering, said the reactor’s design had advanced sufficiently to meet Canada’s regulatory requirements.

One significant unresolved issue, though, is its emergency shutdown systems.

Typically, reactors are required to have two independent shutdown systems. The BWRX-300would have 57 control rods that could be inserted rapidly into its coreby high-pressure water in an emergency to halt reactivity. Should that hydraulic method fail, electric motors would drive them in instead.

Mr. Tyndall assured the commission that the BWRX-300 was designedin such a way that all safety systems “are guaranteed to be fully independent and redundant, which ensureshigh reliability and fail-safe operation.”

CNSC staff, however, questioned whether the shut-off systems were truly independent because both systems rely on the same control rods. That remained unresolved at Wednesday’s hearing.

To address unresolved issues, CNSC staff proposed that the commission impose three “regulatory hold points” during the reactor’s construction at which work would halt until OPG provided sufficient information to satisfy CNSC staff. Ramzi Jammal, the commission’s executive vice-president and chief regulatory operations officer, would administer the hold points.

Throughout an assessmentrunning more than 1,000 pages, published by the CNSC this summer, staff repeatedly noted missing information in OPG’s submission that they vowed to review once it becomes available.

“In many cases, there is a discussion about a topic, and it’s noted that the design is not complete,” commissioner Jerry Hopwood observed at the hearing.

“It’s not entirely clear to what extent the design has been completed in such a way that the conclusions that support a licence to construct are then justified.”

M.V. Ramana, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s School of Public Policy and Global Affairs who specializes in nuclear power, said the CNSC doesn’t have enough information to answer key safety questions necessary to grant a construction licence. He added that, as the first of its kind, the Darlington SMR’s design is likely to require further significant changes during construction.

“What it does tell me is that OPG really has rushed through this,” he said. “It may be that they don’t feel they know enough about the design and are waiting for information from GE Hitachi, or that OPG is under its own self-imposed deadline to submit this application by a certain date.”

Prof. Ramana said the CNSC’s role as a safety regulatoris in conflict with statements its leadership has made in recent years promoting SMRs.

“The CNSC has acted as a cheerleader for small modular reactors,” he said. “This is completely at odds with what a good regulator ought to be doing.”

October 6, 2024 Posted by | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

Biden Says US and Israel Are Discussing Strikes on Iranian Oil Facilities

The president previously said he wouldn’t support strikes on nuclear facilities

by Dave DeCamp October 3, 2024,  https://news.antiwar.com/2024/10/03/biden-says-us-and-israel-are-discussing-strikes-on-iranian-oil-facilities/#gsc.tab=0

President Biden said Thursday that the US and Israel were discussing the possibility of striking Iran’s oil facilities in retaliation for the Iranian missile barrage that targeted Israel on Tuesday, which was a response to multiple Israeli escalations.

When asked by a reporter if he would support Israeli strikes on Iranian oil sites, Biden said, “We’re discussing that. I think that would be a little… anyway.” The comments sent oil prices spiking.

Striking Iran’s oil facilities is supported by the ultra-hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “These oil refineries need to be hit and hit hard because that is the source of cash for the regime to perpetrate their terror,” Graham said in a statement on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, Biden said he wouldn’t support Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, but the US is vowing to ensure Tehran faces “severe consequences.” Israeli officials have told Axios that they plan to hit Iran hard and believe their attack could lead to a major regional war.

Options being considered besides striking oil facilities are targeting Iran’s air defenses or carrying out a targeted assassination inside Iran. Israeli officials have said that if Iran responds to their next attack, then any option is on the table, including strikes on nuclear facilities.

Israel is coordinating its plans to attack Iran with the US because it wants the US to come to its defense in the event of another significant Iranian attack. If Israel wants to carry out a significant strike inside Iran, it may also need support from the US military.

Iran fired about 180 ballistic missiles at Israel in response to the Israeli assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and the Israeli killing of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and Abbas Nilforoushan, an IRGC commander who was killed alongside Nasrallah.

October 6, 2024 Posted by | Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US Supreme Court to hear nuclear waste storage dispute

By Nate Raymond, October 5, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-hear-nuclear-waste-storage-dispute-2024-10-04/

  • Summary
  • Biden administration appeals lower court ruling
  • Nuclear waste storage facility planned for Texas
  • U.S. agency sued by Texas, New Mexico, oil interests

Oct 4 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the authority to license nuclear waste storage facilities following a judicial ruling that upended decades of practice by declaring it does not.

The justices took up appeals by President Joe Biden’s administration and a company that was awarded a license by the NRC to build a waste storage facility in western Texas of the lower court’s ruling. The license was challenged by the states of Texas and New Mexico, as well as oil industry interests.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case in its new term, which begins on Monday, and a decision is expected by the end of June.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has shown skepticism toward the authority of federal regulatory agencies in several major rulings in recent years.

The NRC, the federal agency tasked with regulating nuclear energy in the United States, issued the license in 2021 to Interim Storage Partners, a joint venture of France-based Orano and Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists.

While two other federal appeals courts rejected legal challenges to the license, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and decided that the NRC lacked authority under a federal law called the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to issue the license at all.

The administration has said the ruling would disrupt the nuclear energy sector.

The NRC has issued licenses like the one at issue in this case for the temporary storage of spent fuel produced by nuclear reactors since 1980 in recognition that the nuclear-power industry would need more space for the off-site storage of the radioactive waste.

It did so pursuant to its authority under the Atomic Energy Act to issue licenses to possess nuclear material. Such sites have continued to be licensed, with a proposal to permanently store the nation’s radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain north of Las Vegas stalled following decades of opposition in Nevada.

In the 5th Circuit ruling against the license, Judge James Ho, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, cited a different law, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, that was amended in 1987 to designate Yucca as the sole permanent storage site for such radioactive waste.

Interim Storage Partners planned to operate its nuclear storage facility in Andrews County, Texas. The plan drew opposition from oil- and gas-related organizations because the facility would be operated within the Permian Basin, the highest-producing oil field in the country.

Texas and New Mexico were joined in the litigation challenging the license by Fasken Land and Minerals, a Texas-based oil and gas extraction organization, and a nonprofit group called the Permian Basin Coalition Of Land And Royalty Owners And Operators.

The plaintiffs argued that allowing the proposed facility to be built posed environmental risks to watersheds covering nearly all of New Mexico and Texas, and that a radiation leak could be economically disastrous for oil and gas operations.

“For years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and two private corporations have attempted to force Texas and New Mexico into accepting stockpiled radioactive waste,” Monica Perales, an attorney for Fasken Oil & Ranch, said on Friday.

The commission “lacks the authority to issue licenses for consolidated interim storage of spent nuclear fuel in a region hundreds and even thousands of miles away from the reactors that generated the waste,” Perales added.

October 6, 2024 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Glenn Greenwald: Who is Really Dragging the US Into Israel’s Wars?

October 6, 2024 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »