NASA will test launch nuclear-powered spacecraft for the first time to try and get to Mars faster. Nasa has revealed that it plans to use nuclear-powered spacecrafts to help humanity land on Mars. Whilst it sounds like the stuff of science fiction, the space agency has been perfecting the technology for over 60 years and the first rockets could soon be blasting off. In fact, the insane tech could be tested within the next couple of years.
Agency identifies 70,000 acres at five weapons sites
DOE land could host largest US solar farm at Hanford Site
The Energy Department plans to turn some of its Cold War nuclear weapons development sites into grounds for clean energy generation, including what could be the largest US solar project, agency leaders announced Friday.
The department has identified about 70,000 acres at five sites that hosted nuclear weapons development and testing and have since been cleaned up, according to details of the announcement shared in advance with Bloomberg Law. The announcement is part of the agency’s new Cleanup to Clean Energy initiative, an effort to repurpose parts of DOE-owned lands into clean energy generation sites.
“It’s a good deal and a huge opportunity,” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said at the outset of a daylong event with clean energy industry representatives held in an auditorium space at the agency’s headquarters in Washington.
Developers would have a unique opportunity to lease land from the Energy Department, Granholm said. The sites have massive tracts of land whose characteristics are already mapped out. The decades of site analysis and remediation would speed up environmental and permitting reviews, too.
“Therefore, it will take less time to get shovels in the dirt,” Granholm said.
One former nuclear testing facility, the Hanford site in Richland, Wash., has the potential to host the largest solar farm in the country, Granholm said.
Another site, the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho, sprawls 890 square miles and purchased about 50 megawatts of power in fiscal year 2020 to support 5,400 employees, 600 vehicles, and 300 buildings and trailers, according to the agency. The other sites under consideration include: Nevada National Security Site, in Nye County, Nev.; the Savannah River Site, in Aiken, S.C.; and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, near Carlsbad, N.M.
The agency’s Office of Environmental Management, Office of Legacy Management, Office of Nuclear Energy, and National Nuclear Security Administration all worked to locate the best sites.
The industry officials included those “with proven experience in implementing successful clean electricity projects generating 200 MW or larger,” according to the department.
After the panel, DOE officials told reporters they’re looking forward to project proposals that could power not just DOE facilities but the surrounding region.
Power generators could even propose an arrangement with a customer—a hydrogen producer, semiconductor manufacturer, or other type of facility, said Katy Huff, assistant secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy.
At the Hanford site, the biggest nuclear cleanup site in the country, “there are certainly plenty of developers who have expressed interest” but the department hasn’t made any decisions, said Ike White, who leads the Office of Environmental Management.
“The department is just opening up this for ideas,” White said, adding the agency is open to a range of clean energy technologies.
Outrageous Costs and Deadly Dangers are the Real Risks of Keeping Diablo Open
Independent , By Grant Smith and Anthony Lacey, Wed Jul 26, 2023
California ratepayers might have to foot a staggering $45 billion-plus cost to keep the aging Pacific Gas & Electric, or PG&E, Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant online beyond its slated 2025 closure.
The outrageous price tag is the estimated cost for operating the plant from 2021-2045, or hundreds of millions of dollars every year. And that’s just the expense of prolonging the troubled facility’s life. It doesn’t account for the enormous extra costs that would be incurred following a major disaster like a reactor leak or an earthquake that damages the plant.
EWG used testimony recently filed byThe Utility Reform Network, or TURN, in PG&E’s current rate case to parse the capital and operating expenses of the plant. EWG considered PG&E’s estimates for the plant costs, which likely lowball the true expense, and TURN’s assessment of the plant expenses, which may be closer to the actual burden.
EWG estimates it will likely amount to hundreds of millions of dollars every year, for total costs ranging from more than $20 billionto nearly $45 billion from2023 through 2045 — or more.
That’s just the base cost of running the facility. The alarming figure doesn’t account for the additional massive costs that would come from a disaster at the plant, like an earthquake or a nuclear reactor leak, or unanticipated maintenance and security costs that often plague old nuclear power plants.
That cost — reaching tens of billions of dollars — will be passed on to 15.8 million Californians already fleeced by PG&E’s exorbitant electricity bills. According to EWG estimates, keeping Diablo Canyon open could add from $55to $124 a year to the typical utility bill, considering the cost of the facility as a fixed charge over 23 years.
Or it could be even higher because these costs, at the moment, are highly speculative and the older Diablo Canyon gets, the higher the capital and operating costs will become to keep it online and providing electricity.
An extension of the facility’s life for 20 years after its scheduled 2025 shutdown could also generate other large costs just to ensure its ongoing operation. Many aging nuclear power plants are notorious for wasting millions of dollars on unanticipated maintenance and security costs…………………………………………………..
An Unnecessary Nuclear Facility
What’s just as outrageous as the potential $45 billion-plus cost of extending Diablo Canyon’s life is the fact that the state has no need to keep the plant open after the scheduled 2025 closure………………………………………………………………………
The Danger of Diablo Canyon
Diablo Canyon, located on California’s central coast in San Luis Obispo County, sits atop a web of fault lines and rests above a cliff below the Pacific Ocean, putting it at heightened risk of damage from an earthquake, tsunami or both.
The facility was set to close both of its two reactor units by 2025, following a carefully crafted 2018 deal between PG&E, unions and environmentalists. The deal had the support of state regulators and then-Lieutenant Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was elected governor in 2018.
BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts environmental regulators have denied a request by the company dismantling a shuttered nuclear power plant to release more than 1 million gallons (3.8 million liters) of radioactive wastewater into Cape Cod Bay.
The state Department of Environmental Protection’s draft decision issued July 26 said it denied Holtec’s request for a permit modification because the discharge from Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth would violate a state law that designates the bay as an ocean sanctuary.
The draft will not be finalized until after a public comment period that ends Aug. 25.
Environmentalists and politicians praised the decision.
Release of the treated wastewater would pose a threat to the bay’s environment, human health, the fishing and shellfishing industries, and the economy of the region, Andrew Gottlieb, executive director of the Association to Preserve Cape Cod, said in a statement.
“Holtec sought to profit at the expense of the people, the environment and economy of Cape Cod and, like most corporate bullies, needed to be told no,” he said.
Holtec promised a transparent decommissioning process when it took over the plant after it stopped generating power in May 2019, U.S. Sen. Edward Markey said.
You can build a small nuclear reactor in Alaska, but not within 2,700 feet of a house.
On Monday, Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom signed a package of regulations that dictate where small nuclear reactors, sometimes called “microreactors,” may be built in Alaska.
The regulations signed this week don’t deal specifically with nuclear safety, only where a reactor could be sited. Among the restrictions: A reactor can’t be built within 2,700 feet of a residence, 300 feet of a national park or game reserve, in a coastal area vulnerable to storm surge, within 100 feet of a public road or trail, or in an area protected because it’s used for drinking water.
Any reactor site must be approved by the local municipal government, and if a reactor is planned for a site outside an organized borough, the Alaska Legislature must approve the site.
Those site restrictions could also apply to a nuclear waste site or a facility that processes nuclear fuel, the regulations state. None have been publicly announced here.
During a public comment period earlier this year, the proposed regulations were opposed by the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Copper Country Alliance and several individual residents who said they were concerned about dangers posed by nuclear power.
It’s too soon to draw any firm conclusions, but to see voices of restraint stepping down and proponents of escalation stepping up could be a bad portent of things to come.
The Biden administration looks set to become even more warlike than it already was if you can imagine, with virulent Russia hawk Victoria Nuland and virulent China hawk Charles Q Brown now being elevated to lofty positions by the White House.
Nuland, the wife of alpha neocon Robert Kagan, has been named acting deputy secretary of state by President Biden, at least until a new deputy secretary has been named. This places her at second in command within the State Department, second only to Tony Blinken.
In an article about Nuland’s unique role in souring relations between the US and Russia during her previous tenure in the State Department under Obama, Responsible Statecraft’s Connor Echols writes the following of the latest news:
Nuland’s appointment will be a boon for Russia hawks who want to turn up the heat on the Kremlin. But, for those who favor a negotiated end to the conflict in Ukraine, a promotion for the notoriously “undiplomatic diplomat” will be a bitter pill.
A few quick reminders are in order. When Nuland was serving in the Obama administration, she had a now-infamous leaked call with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. As the Maidan Uprising roiled the country, the pair of American diplomats discussed conversations with opposition leaders, and Nuland expressed support for putting Arseniy Yatseniuk into power. (Yatseniuk would become prime minister later that month, after Russia-friendly former President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country.) At one memorable point in the call, Nuland said “Fu–k the EU” in response to Europe’s softer stance on the protests.
The controversy surrounding the call — and larger implications of U.S. involvement in the ouster of Yanukovych — kicked up tensions with Russia and contributed to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to seize Crimea and support an insurgency in eastern Ukraine. Her handing out food to demonstrators on the ground in Kyiv probably didn’t help either. Nuland, along with State Department sanctions czar Daniel Fried, then led the effort to punish Putin through sanctions. Another official at State reportedly asked Fried if “the Russians realize that the two hardest-line people in the entire U.S. government are now in a position to go after them?”
In a 2015 Consortium News article titled “The Mess That Nuland Made,” the late Robert Parry singled out Nuland as the primary architect of the 2014 regime change operation in Ukraine, which, as Aaron Maté explained last year, paved the way to the war we’re seeing there today. Hopefully her position winds up being temporary.
In other news, the Senate Arms Services Committee has voted to confirm Biden’s selection of General Charles Q Brown Jr as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, replacing Mark Milley. A full senate vote will now take place on whether to confirm Brown — currently the Air Force Chief of Staff — for the nation’s highest military office.
Brown is unambiguous about his belief that the US must hasten to militarize against China in the so-called Indo-Pacific to prepare for confrontation between the two powers, calling for more US bases in the region and increased efforts to arm Taiwan during his hearing before the Senate Arms Services Committee earlier this month.
Back in May, Moon of Alabama flagged Brown’s nomination in an article which also noted that several advocates of military restraint had been resigning from their positions within the administration, including Wendy Sherman, the deputy secretary of state who Nuland has taken over for.
It’s too soon to draw any firm conclusions, but to see voices of restraint stepping down and proponents of escalation stepping up could be a bad portent of things to come.
Eighteen months later Ukraine is in ruins. Its latest counteroffensive achieved nothing. In the last three weeks, an estimated 26,000 Ukrainian soldiers died in pointless attacks against world-class Russian defenses ‘in depth.’
The attempt to extend NATO’s “new globalist world order” to Russia has failed.
From the moment the war in Ukraine started, Western reporting on the war was a radical repudiation of the truth. Washington and its NATO allies always knew that NATO expansion to Russia’s borders would precipitate an armed conflict with Moscow, but NATO’s ruling globalist class did not care. For them, Russia in 2022 was unchanged from the weak and incapable Russia of the late 1990s. The risk of failure seemed low. Ergo, Russia could be bullied into submission.
Americans and most Europeans did not bother to question or analyze. Widespread strategic ignorance about Russia and Eastern Europe ensured that most Americans and even West Europeans would react quickly and viscerally to the Western media’s distorted images and lies about Russia. At the same time, tolerance for criticism of Washington’s role in fashioning the corrupt and deceitful conduct of the Volodymyr Zelenskyy Regime and its war was disallowed in the press
Washington’s ruling class was cheered when it dismissed Russian proposals for talks on any grounds that did not recognize NATO’s right to transform Ukraine into a base for U.S. and Allied Military Power aimed at Russia. Ukrainian flags sprouted from the lush grounds of America’s wealthier neighborhoods like flowers in an arboretum and wonders in the form of limitless military assistance, miracle weapons, and cash were promised to President Zelenskyy––promises that strategic reality did not justify.
In 2022 the Biden Administration no longer possessed the military and economic strength to wage high-end conventional warfare that it had in 1991. Waging a major war 10,000 miles from home on the Eurasian continent is impossible without the support of truly powerful Allies on the model of the British Empire during WWII. Washington’s NATO allies are military dependencies, not formidable strategic partners.
Whereas Russian Military Power is still structured for decisive operations launched from Russian soil, U.S. Military power is geared to project limited air, naval, and land power thousands of miles from home to the periphery of Asia and Africa. American military power consists of boutique forces designed for safari in Africa and the Middle East, not decisive combat operations against great continental powers like Russia or China.
Eighteen months later Ukraine is in ruins. Its latest counteroffensive achieved nothing. In the last three weeks, an estimated 26,000 Ukrainian soldiers died in pointless attacks against world-class Russian defenses ‘in depth.’ (Defenses ‘in depth’ mean a security zone of 15 -25 kilometers in front of the main defense, that consists of at least three defense belts twenty or more kilometers deep.)
By comparison, Russian losses were minimal.
Today, more than 100,000 Russian troops are conducting offensive operations along the Lyman-Kupiansk axis. These forces include 900 tanks, 555 artillery systems and 370 multiple rocket launchers. It does not take much imagination to anticipate the breakthrough of these forces to the North where they can encircle Kharkiv.
Once Russian Forces surround the city, they will become an irresistible magnet for Ukraine’s last reserve of 30-40,000 troops. Ukrainian Forces attacking to the East to break through to Kharkov will present the combination of Russian space and terrestrial-based ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets and Precision Strike Aerospace, Artillery, Rocket, and Missile Systems with a target array that only a blind man could miss.
None of these developments should surprise anyone in the West. Building a Ukrainian army on the fly with a hotchpotch of hastily assembled equipment from a multitude of NATO members and an officer corps of many courageous, but inexperienced officers had little chance of success even under the best of circumstance.
“Units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces are at such terrible states of degradation that soldiers are abandoning their posts, and whilst not mentioned in these documents, a flood of videos have been published from Russian sources claiming Ukrainian service personnel are surrendering at the first opportunity owing to the belief that they are being treated as ‘nothing more than cannon fodder.’”
Events on the ground are beginning to overtake the carefully orchestrated charade in Kiev. There is little that pontificating retired generals and armchair military analysts can do to halt the inevitable. Moscow understands that the war will not end without Russian offensive action. Whatever the Washington’s original goals may have been, theybeen they are unrealizable. Russian Forces will soon fall on the Ukrainian forces with the momentum and the impact of an avalanche.
In view of these points, before all of Ukraine’s manpower is annihilated, or a “Coalition of the Willing” from Poland and Lithuania marches into Western Ukraine, Washington can arrest Ukraine’s downward spiral into total defeat, and Washington’s own irresponsible drift into a regional war with Russia for which Washington and its allies are not prepared.
Cooler heads can prevail inside the beltway. The fighting can stop, but a ceasefire, and the diplomatic talks that must proceed from a ceasefire, will not occur unless Washington and its Allies acknowledge three critical points:
First, whatever form the Ukrainian State assumes in the aftermath of the conflict, Ukraine must be neutral and non-aligned. NATO membership is out of the question. A neutral Ukraine on the Austrian model can still provide a buffer between Russia and its Western Neighbors.
Second, Washington and its Allies must immediately suspend all military aid to Ukraine. Doubling down on failure by introducing more equipment and technology the Ukrainian Forces cannot quickly absorb and employ is wasteful and self-defeating.
Third, all U.S. and allied personnel, clandestine or in uniform, must withdraw from Ukraine. Insisting on some form of NATO presence as a face-saving measure is pointless. The attempt to extend NATO’s “new globalist world order” to Russia has failed.
The point is straightforward. It is time for Washington to turn its attention inward and address the decades of American societal, economic, and military decay that ensued after 1991. It’s time to reverse the decline in American national prosperity, and power; to avoid unnecessary overseas conflict;and to shun future interventions in the affairs of other nation states and their societies. The threats to our Republic are here, at home, not in the Eastern Hemisphere.
The Hill, BY EDWIN LYMAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR – 07/25/23
Imagine a future where experimental nuclear reactors are scattered across the U.S. landscape like so many Starbucks, in densely populated and rural areas alike. Also, imagine they are allowed to operate without thoroughly reviewed and validated safety analyses, highly trained personnel at the controls, the protection of armed security officers, any provisions for off-site emergency planning and robust containment structures that would help prevent the release of highly hazardous radioactive materials if the worst happens.
This is the future that many in the nuclear industry, along with their vocal supporters, are working overtime to achieve.
The only bulwark against the most dangerous proposals is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent federal agency in charge of protecting the public from the radiological hazards of civil nuclear facilities. However, the NRC is facing a coordinated, massive push by the industry to drastically weaken its safety and security regulations and speed up the implementation of its back-to-the-1950s dystopian vision.
NRC critics blame the agency for the slow pace of new nuclear reactor licensing and construction in the U.S. But the NRC should not be scapegoated for the nuclear industry’s own failures. These include repeatedly missing cost and schedule targets for the Vogtle-3 reactor in Georgia, or supplying technically deficient, inadequate applications, such as Oklo’s attempt to apply for a license for a “micro” nuclear reactor, which the NRC justifiably rejected, and NuScale’s application for a standard design approval for its small modular reactor, which the NRC found contained numerous gaps.
The industry’s ire has focused on the NRC’s development of the “Part 53” rule for so-called risk-informed licensing of new reactors, which proponents argue are so much safer than the currently operating fleet that they need far less regulatory oversight across the board. But the fundamental problem is that many of these reactor designs,which introduce new safety and security risks,only exist on paper or have had extremely limited (and not necessarily relevant) real-world experience………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Some may ask why nuclear power still requires stringent regulation given that proponents claim it is already the safest form of energy. But although some nuclear supporters attempt to gaslight the public by playing down the massive health, environmental and economic impacts of the 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima disasters, the fact remains that, unlike renewable energy technologies, nuclear power generates vast amounts of uniquely hazardous and long-lived radioactive materials as they operate. Not only are these substances highly carcinogenic, but evidence of their role in cardiovascular disease is growing.
Extending operations of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant through 2045 could cost California ratepayers as much as $45 billion, a new report has found.
The state’s biggest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), is currently in the process of seeking a license renewal that could enable the aging facility to run for another 20 years — with the widespread support of state legislators, but in opposition to environmental activists.
If the plant ends up staying online for two more decades, total costs to run the site could range from more than $20 billion to nearly $45 billion from 2023 through 2045, according to a new analysis from the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
“Keeping Diablo Canyon open past its closure date is a terrible idea for many reasons, including the staggering price tag that unwitting ratepayers will face for keeping the dilapidated and dangerous nuclear plant operating,” EWG President Ken Cook, who is also a Bay Area resident, said in a statement.
While PG&E in 2016 had announced plans to retire the site and decommission its two reactors when their licenses expire — in November 2024 and August 2025, respectively — California enacted legislation last fall seeking to extend operations until 2030.
About six months later, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted PG&E an exemption that enabled the plant to stay open under its current licenses while the agency considers renewal application — whose terms would apply for 20 years……………………………………
The EWG analysis — based in part on testimony filed by the Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group — estimated that keeping the plant open would likely require hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
Because that cost would need to be passed on to the consumer, households could then expect an increase of between $55–124 per year on typical utility bills, according to the analysis.
“It’s clearly a high-cost, no-reward and puzzling scenario for California, given its decades-long leadership on the environment,” a statement from EWG said……………………………………..
The estimated $20 billion–$45 billion cost to ratepayers could be even higher, the EWG analysts argued, stressing that these projections don’t account for expenditures associated with disasters, such as radiation leaks or earthquake damage.
Grant Smith, EWG energy advisor and co-author of the report, argued that the 6-8 percent of California’s electricity that is provided by Diablo Canyon could easily come from cleaner and safer sources.
“California added enough renewables in the past year to match the power output of Diablo Canyon,” Smith said.
“Without civilian nuclear energy there is no military use of this technology — and without military use there is no civilian nuclear energy,” admitted French President Emmanuel Macron in 2019. No surprise then, that France is investing billions in SMR technology.
If you didn’t know better, you’d think Lloyd Marbet was a dairy farmer or maybe a retired shop teacher. His beard is thick, soft, and gray, his hair pulled back in a small ponytail. In his mid-seventies, he still towers over nearly everyone. His handshake is firm, but there’s nothing menacing about him. He lumbers around like a wise, old hobbling tortoise.
We’re standing in the deco lobby of the historic Kiggins Theater in downtown Vancouver, Washington, about to view a screening of Atomic Bamboozle, a remarkable new documentary by filmmaker Jan Haaken that examines the latest push for atomic power and a nuclear “renaissance” in the Pacific Northwest. Lloyd, a Vietnam veteran, is something of an environmental folk hero in these parts, having led the early 1990s effort to shut down Oregon’s infamous Trojan Nuclear Plant. He’s also one of the unassuming stars of a film that highlights his critical role in that successful Trojan takedown and his continued opposition to nuclear technology.
I’ve always considered Lloyd an optimist, but this evening I sense a bit of trepidation.
“It concerns me greatly that this fight isn’t over yet,” he tells me in his deep baritone. He’s been at this for years and now helps direct the Oregon Conservancy Foundation, which promotes renewable energy, even as he continues to oppose nuclear power. “We learned a lot from Trojan, but that was a long time ago and this is a new era, and many people aren’t aware of the history of nuclear power and the anti-nuclear movement.”
The new push for atomic energy in the Pacific Northwest isn’t just coming from the well-funded nuclear industry, their boosters at the Department of Energy, or billionaires like Bill Gates. It’s also echoing in the mainstream environmental movement among those who increasingly view the technology as a potential climate savior.
In a recent interview with ABC News, Bill Gates couldn’t have been more candid about why he’s embraced the technology of so-called small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs. “Nuclear energy, if we do it right, will help us solve our climate goals,” he claimed. As it happens, he’s also invested heavily in an “advanced” nuclear power start-up company, TerraPower, based up in Bellevue, Washington, which is hoping to build a small 345-megawatt atomic power reactor in rural Kemmerer, Wyoming.
The nuclear industry is banking on a revival and placing its bets on SMRs like those proposed by the Portland, Oregon-based NuScale Power Corporation, whose novel 60-megawatt SMR design was approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2022. While the underlying physics is the same as all nuclear power plants, SMRs are easier to build and safer to run than the previous generation of nuclear facilities — or so go the claims of those looking to profit from them.
NuScale’s design acceptance was a first in this country where 21 SMRs are now in the development stage. Such facilities are being billed as innovative alternatives to the hulking commercial reactors that average one gigawatt of power output per year and take decades and billions of dollarsto construct. If SMRs can be brought online quickly, their sponsors claim, they will help mitigate carbon emissions because nuclear power is a zero-emissions energy source.
Never mind that it’s not, since nuclear power plants produce significant greenhouse gas emissions from uranium mining to plant construction to waste disposal. Life cycle analyses of carbon emissions from different energy sources find that, when every stage is taken into account, nuclear energy actually has a carbon footprint similar to, if not larger than, natural gas plants, almost double that of wind energy, and significantly more than solar power.
“SMRs are no longer an abstract concept,” Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Kathryn Huff, a leading nuclear advocate who has the ear of the Biden administration, insisted. “They are real and they are ready for deployment thanks to the hard work of NuScale, the university community, our national labs, industry partners, and the NRC. This is innovation at its finest and we are just getting started here in the U.S.!”
A Risky (and Expensive) Business
Even though Huff claims that SMRs are “ready for deployment,” that’s hardly the case. NuScale’s initial SMR design, under development in Idaho, won’t actually be operable until at least 2029 after clearing more NRC regulatory hurdles. The scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are already calling for fossil-fuel use to be cut by two-thirds over the next 10 years to transition away from carbon-intensive energy, a schedule that, if kept, such small reactors won’t be able to speed up.
And keep in mind that the seemingly prohibitive costs of the SMRs are a distinct problem. NuScale’s original estimate of $55-$58 per megawatt-hour for a proposed project in Utah — already higher than wind and solar which come in at around $50 per megawatt-hour — has recently skyrocketed to $89 per megawatt-hour. And that’s after a $4 billion investment in such energy by U.S. taxpayers, which will cover 43% of the cost of the construction of such plants. This is based on strikingly rosy, if not unrealistic, projections. After all, nuclear power in the U.S. currently averages around $373 per megawatt-hour.
And as the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis put it:
“[N]o one should fool themselves into believing this will be the last cost increase for the NuScale/UAMPS SMR. The project still needs to go through additional design, licensing by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, construction, and pre-operational testing. The experience of other reactors has repeatedly shown that further significant cost increases and substantial schedule delays should be anticipated at any stages of project development.”
Here in the Pacific Northwest, NuScale faces an additional obstacle that couldn’t be more important: What will it do with all the noxious waste such SMRs are certain to produce? In 1980, Oregon voters overwhelmingly passed Measure 7, a landmark ballot initiative that halted the construction of new nuclear power plants until the federal government established a permanent site to store spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste. Also included in Measure 7 was a provision that made all new Oregon nuclear plants subject to voter approval. Forty-three years later, no such repository for nuclear waste exists anywhere in the United States, which has prompted corporate lobbyists for the nuclear industry to push several bills that would essentially repeal that Oregon law.
NuScale, no fan of Measure 7, has decided to circumvent it by building its SMRs across the Columbia River in Washington, a state with fewer restrictions. There, Clark County is, in its own fashion, beckoning the industry by putting $200,000 into a feasibility study to see if SMRs could “benefit the region.” There’s another reason NuScale is eyeing the Columbia River corridor: its plants will need water. Like all commercial nuclear facilities, SMRs must be kept cool so they don’t overheat and melt down, creating little Chernobyls. In fact, being “light-water” reactors, the company’s SMRs will require a continuous water supply to operate correctly.
Like other nuclear reactors, SMRs will utilize fission to make heat, which in turn will be used to generate electricity. In the process, they will also produce a striking amount of waste, which may be even more challenging to deal with than the waste from traditional reactors. At the moment, NuScale hopes to store the nasty stuff alongside the gunk that the Trojan Nuclear Plant produces in big dry casks by the Columbia River in Oregon, near the Pacific Ocean.
As with all the waste housed at various nuclear sites nationwide, Trojan’s casks are anything but a permanent solution to the problem of such waste. After all, plutonium garbage will be radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Typically enough, even though it’s no longer operating, Trojan still remains a significant risk as it sits near the Cascadia Subduction Zone, where a “megathrust” earthquake is expected someday to violently shake the region and drown it in a gigantic flood of seawater. If that were to happen, much of Oregon’s coastline would be devastated, including the casks holding Trojan’s deadly rubbish. The last big quake of this sort hit the area more than 300 years ago, but it’s just a matter of time before another Big One strikes — undoubtedly, while the radioactive waste in those dry casks is still life-threatening.
Nuclear expert M. V. Ramana, a soft-spoken but authoritative voice in Jan Haaken’s Atomic Bamboozle documentary, put it this way to me:
“The industry’s plans for SMR waste are no different from their plans for radioactive waste from older reactors, which is to say that they want to find some suitable location and a community that is willing to accept the risk of future contamination and bury the waste underground.
“But there is a catch [with SMR’s waste]. Some of these proposed SMR designs use fuel with materials that are chemically difficult to deal with. The sodium-cooled reactor design proposed by Bill Gates would have to figure out how to manage the sodium. Because sodium does not behave well in the presence of water and all repositories face the possibility of water seeping into them, the radioactive waste generated by such designs would have to be processed to remove the sodium. This is unlike the fleet of reactors [currently in operation].”
Other troubles exist, too, explains Ramana. One, in particular, is deeply concerning: the waste from SMRs, like the waste produced in all nuclear plants, could lead to the proliferation of yet more atomic weaponry.
Nuclear Hot Links
As the pro-military Atlantic Council explained in a 2019 report on the deep ties between nuclear power and nuclear weapons in this country:
“The civilian nuclear power sector plays a crucial role in supporting U.S. national security goals. The connectivity of the civilian and military nuclear value chain — including shared equipment, services, and human capital — has created a mutually reinforcing feedback loop, wherein a robust civilian nuclear industry supports the nuclear elements of the national security establishment.”
In fact, governments globally, from France to Pakistan, the United States to China, have a strategic incentive to keep tabs on their nuclear energy sectors, not just for potential accidents but because nuclear waste can be utilized in making nuclear weapons.
Spent fuel, or the waste that’s left over from the fission process, comes out scalding hot and highly radioactive. It must be quickly cooled in pools of water to avoid the possibility of a radioactive meltdown. Since the U.S. has no repository for spent fuel, all this waste has to stay put — first in pools for at least a year or more and then in dry casks where air must be constantly circulated to keep the spent fuel from causing mayhem.
The United States already has a troubling and complicated nuclear-waste problem, which worsens by the day. Annually, the U.S. produces 88,000 metric tons of spent fuel from its commercial nuclear reactors. With the present push to build more plants, including SMRs, spent fuel will only be on the rise. Worse yet, as Ramana points out, SMRs are going to produce more of this incendiary waste per unit of electricity because they will prove less efficient than larger reactors. And therein lies the problem, not just because the amount of radioactive waste the country doesn’t truly know how to deal with will increase, but because more waste means more fuel for nukes.
As Ramana explains:
“When uranium fuel is irradiated in a reactor, the uranium-238 isotope absorbs neutrons and [transmutes] into plutonium-239. This plutonium is in the spent fuel that is discharged by the reactor but can be separated from the rest of the uranium and other chemicals in the irradiated fuel through a chemical process called reprocessing. Once it is separated, plutonium can be used in nuclear weapons. Even though there are technical differences between different kinds of nuclear reactors, all reactors, including SMRs, can be used to make nuclear weapons materials… Any country that acquires a nuclear reactor automatically enhances its ability to make nuclear weapons. Whether it does so or not is a matter of choice.”
Ramana is concerned for good reason. France, as he points out, has Europe’s largest arsenal of nuclear warheads, and its atomic weapons industry is deeply tied to its “peaceful” nuclear energy production. “Without civilian nuclear energy there is no military use of this technology — and without military use there is no civilian nuclear energy,” admitted French President Emmanuel Macron in 2019. No surprise then, that France is investing billions in SMR technology. After all, many SMR designs require enriched uranium and plutonium to operate, and the facilities that produce materials for SMRs can also be reconfigured to produce fuel for nuclear weapons. Put another way, the more countries that possess this technology, the more that will have the ability to manufacture atomic bombs.
As the credits rolled on Atomic Bamboozle, I glanced around the packed theater. I instantly sensed the shock felt by movie-goers who had no idea nuclear power was priming for a comeback in the Northwest. Lloyd Marbet, arms crossed, was seated at the back of the theater, looking calmer than most. Still, I knew he was eager to lead the fight to stop SMRs from reaching the shores of the nearby Columbia River and would infuse a younger generation with a passion to resist the nuclear-industrial complex he’s been challenging for decades.
“Can you believe we’re fighting this shit all over again?” he asked me later with his usual sense of urgency and outrage. “We’ve beat them before and you can damn well bet we’ll do it again.”
In a new article titled “Ukraine’s Lack of Weaponry and Training Risks Stalemate in Fight With Russia,” The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Michaels reports that western officials knew Ukrainian forces didn’t have the weapons and training necessary to succeed in their highly touted counteroffensive which was launched last month.
Michaels writes:…………………………………………………
The claim that western officials had sincerely believed Ukrainian forces might be able to overcome their glaring deficits through sheer pluck and ticker is undermined later in the same article by a war pundit who says the US would never attempt such a counteroffensive without first controlling the skies, which Ukraine doesn’t have the ability to do:
“America would never attempt to defeat a prepared defense without air superiority, but they [Ukrainians] don’t have air superiority,” the U.S. Army War College’s John Nagl told WSJ. “It’s impossible to overstate how important air superiority is for fighting a ground fight at a reasonable cost in casualties.”
“Leading up to the Ukrainian counteroffensive, which was launched in June, the Discord leaks and media reports revealed that the US did not believe Ukraine could regain much territory from Russia. But the Biden administration pushed for the assault anyway, as it rejected the idea of a pause in fighting.”
So the empire is still knowingly throwing Ukrainian lives into the meat grinder of an unwinnable proxy war, even as western officials tell the public that this war is about saving Ukrainian lives and handing Putin a crushing defeat whenever they’re on camera.
This attitude from the empire is not a new development. Last October The Washington Post reported that “Privately, U.S. officials say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright, but they have ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table.”
Now why might that be? Why would the western empire be so comfortable encouraging Ukrainians to keep fighting when it knows they can’t win?
We find our answer in another Washington Post article titled “The West feels gloomy about Ukraine. Here’s why it shouldn’t.”, authored last week by virulent empire propagandist David Ignatius. In his eagerness to frame the floundering counteroffensive in a positive light for his American audience, Ignatius let slip an inconvenient truth:
“Meanwhile, for the United States and its NATO allies, these 18 months of war have been a strategic windfall, at relatively low cost (other than for the Ukrainians). The West’s most reckless antagonist has been rocked. NATO has grown much stronger with the additions of Sweden and Finland. Germany has weaned itself from dependence on Russian energy and, in many ways, rediscovered its sense of values. NATO squabbles make headlines, but overall, this has been a triumphal summer for the alliance.”
Anyone who believes this proxy war is about helping Ukrainians should be made to read that paragraph over and over again until it sinks in. The admission that the US-centralized power structure benefits immensely from this proxy conflict is revealing enough, but that parenthetical “other than for the Ukrainians” aside really drives it home. It reads as though it was added as an afterthought, like “Oh yeah it’s actually kind of rough on the Ukrainians though — if you consider them to be people.”
The claim that this war is about helping Ukrainians has been further undermined by another new Washington Post report that Ukraine is now more riddled with land mines than any other nation on earth, and that US-supplied cluster munitions are only making the land more deadly.
That’s right kids! We’re turning Ukraine into an uninhabitable wasteland of death and dismemberment to save the Ukrainians.
We should probably talk more about the fact that the US empire is loudly promoting the goal of achieving peace in Ukraine by defeating Russia while quietly acknowledging that this goal is impossible. This is like accelerating toward a brick wall and pretending it’s an open road.
The narrative that Russia can be beaten by ramping up proxy warfare against it makes sense if you believe Russia can be militarily defeated in Ukraine, but the US empire does not believe that Russia can be militarily defeated in Ukraine. It knows that continuing this war is only going to perpetuate the death and devastation.
“Beat Putin’s ass and make him withdraw” sounds cool and is egoically gratifying, and it’s become the mainstream answer to the problem of the war in Ukraine, but nobody promoting that answer can address the fact that the ones driving this proxy war believe it’s impossible. In fact, all evidence we’re seeing suggests that the US is not trying to deliver Putin a crushing defeat in Ukraine and force him to withdraw, but is rather trying to create another long and costly military quagmire for Moscow, as western cold warriors have done repeatedly in instances like Afghanistan and Syria.
Wanting to weaken Russia and wanting to save lives and establish peace in Ukraine are two completely different goals, so different that in practice they wind up being largely contradictory. Drawing Moscow into a bloody quagmire means many more people dying in a war that drags on for years, with all the immense human suffering that that entails.
The US does not want peace in Ukraine, it wants to overextend Russia, shore up military and energy dominance over Europe, expand its war machine and enrich the military-industrial complex. That’s why it knowingly provoked this war. It’s posing as Ukraine’s savior while being clearly invested in Ukraine’s destruction.
From body bags of ice to pavement burn: US grapples with new extreme heat reality. As unrelenting, record-breaking temperatures continue across many states, pressure is mounting on US healthcare systems due to an increasing number of people in heat distress coming through their doors.
In the Southwest, doctors are relying on tried-and-tested measures such as body bags packed with ice to quickly bring down dangerously high body temperatures. Doctors at Memorial Hermann Medical Center in Houston, Texas, told The Independent that there has been an increase in the number of patients presenting with heat-related illnesses including heat stroke, which can be potentially fatal if not treated rapidly.
SGS has released research showing in unprecedented detail the spread of radioactive fallout from 94 continental U.S. atmospheric nuclear weapon tests, including the first nuclear weapon test – the 16 July 1945 Trinity explosion that was a key part of the Manhattan Project. This work has been reported in The New York Times.
The new model shows the nuclear explosions carried out in New Mexico and Nevada between 1945 and 1962 led to widespread radioactive contamination, with Trinity making a significant contribution to exposure in New Mexico, in neighboring states, and reaching 46 of the 48 contiguous United States as well as Canada and Mexico. The study also documents significant deposition in Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona and Idaho, as well as dozens of federally recognized tribal lands.
The research provides estimates of the deposition of radioactivity over 10 days following the detonation of the Trinity nuclear explosion, and for five days subsequent to the atmospheric tests in Nevada. It highlights that significant radioactive deposition took place in locations in New Mexico and on federally recognized tribal lands not covered by the U.S. Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. It also reveals that plutonium carried by the wind from the Trinity test explosion reached Crawford Lake in Canada on July 20, 1945. The presence of plutonium in Crawford Lake sediments has been proposed as one maker for the beginning of the Anthropocene epoch……………………………………….. more https://sgs.princeton.edu/news-announcements/n
The real symbol of the United States is not the stars and stripes, nor the bald eagle, nor the Statue of Liberty, nor even the mighty McDonald’s logo. The real symbol of the United States is the Pentagon.
The Pentagon should feature centrally on the US flag. It should be on the coins and on all the bills, and it should appear next to the name of every American in the Olympics. When anyone sees a five-sided polygon, they should immediately think “United States of America”.
There is nothing more representative of the most significant things about the United States than the Pentagon. Sure the US has lovely national parks, an abundance of fast food chains and 500 million-dollar superhero movies, but nothing has anywhere near the effect on the world as the US government’s ability to project force around the planet with military violence and the threat thereof.
That is the main thing that makes the US unique among nations, after all. Americans are taught from childhood to take special pride in their nation’s “freedom” and “democracy” (of which they have neither), when what actually makes their country stand out against the crowd is its role as the hub of a globe-spanning empire that is held together by nonstop military aggression. The five-sided building which houses the US Department of Defense — formerly called the Department of War until someone noticed that was a bit too truthful — is the perfect symbol for that empire. It conveys what the United States is really putting out into the world more accurately than any other…………………………………….. more https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-true-symbol-of-the-united-states
nuclear-news 