City of Logan cuts its losses, withdraws from risky NuScam “small” nuclear reactor project
Logan withdraws from risky nuclear power project, Cache Valley 
Daily Charlie Schill August 19, 2020 LOGAN – Members of the Logan City Council voted Tuesday to end the city’s partnership in an increasingly expensive nuclear power project.
As a member of the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), Logan City owned a partial interest in a first-of-its-kind nuclear plant proposed to be constructed at the Idaho National Laboratory.
Faced with Sept. 15 deadline to ante up more funding for the risky project, both Mark Montgomery, the city’s light and power director, and Logan Finance Director Richard Anderson recommended that Logan withdraw from the Carbon Free Power Project…….
Montgomery told city council members that Logan had invested about $400,000 in the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) project since 2017. If the city had opted to continue its participation in the project into its initial licensing phase through 2023, the price tag would have been another $654,000.
In early August, the Utah Taxpayers Association urged all Utah cities to reconsider their participation in the SMR project due to its potential for out–of-control costs………
In the original CFPP proposal, the U.S. Department of Energy was to foot the bill for the development of the project’s first module. After pledging up to $1.4 billion for those expenses, federal officials have since backed out of that agreement, leaving UAMPS holding the bag for the project’s first-of-its-kind risks.
Montgomery added that estimated cost of the project have also escalated since 2017, jumping from $3.6 billion to $6.1 billion as of July of this year……… https://www.cachevalleydaily.com/news/archive/2020/08/19/logan-withdraws-from-risky-nuclear-power-project/#.X0BMOOgzbIU
Debate rages on for nuclear waste facility proposed near Carlsbad, more hearings scheduled
|
Debate rages on for nuclear waste facility proposed near Carlsbad, more hearings scheduled
Adrian Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus, 20 Aug 20, A project to build a temporary storage facility for high-level nuclear waste in southeast New Mexico will continue to be debated as the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission scheduled four more public hearings to solicit public feedback on the proposal.Holtec International’s proposed consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) would temporarily hold spent nuclear fuel rods at the surface in an area near the Eddy-Lea county line…….. opponents continued to question the safety of the project and its plan to transport spent nuclear fuel from generators across the county and the legality of opening a temporary storage facility when the U.S. lacks a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste…… The hearings were planned to be held online on Aug. 20 from 4 to 7 p.m., Aug. 25 from noon to 3 p.m., Aug. 26 from 4 to 7 p.m. and Sept. 2 from 9 a.m. to noon. Previously, the NRC held public meetings on the EIS on June 23 and July 9. Written comments were to be accepted until Sept. 22 via email to Holtec-CISFEIS@nrc.gov, via mail to the Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC or online to the federal government’s rulemaking page at regulations.gov using docket ID NRC-2018-0052………… Project debated by New Mexico officials, nuclear industry leadersNew Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and state officials voiced continued disapproval of the project, with Lujan Grisham writing a letter to President Donald Trump to voice her opposition last month. Lujan Grisham cited concerns the project could imperil the environment in New Mexico and threaten to disrupt local agriculture and extraction industries in the southeast region of the state…….. https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2020/08/20/debate-rages-nuclear-waste-facility-proposed-near-carlsbad/5604978002/ |
|
U.S. Democratic Party not really interested in reducing the bloated military spending
War, Peace and the Democrats, Common Wonders, Wednesday, August 19th, 2020 By Robert C. Koehler
“There’s something happening here/What it is ain’t exactly clear . . .”
Or is it? “……………………………Yes, there are progressive, antiwar Democrats out there, gaining power, getting elected to office, almost winning presidential primaries — scaring the bejesus out of the Democratic establishment — but the party itself still stands firmly in the middle of nowhere, fully in favor of empathy and compassion and yet, somehow, fully supportive of the endless wars most of its own voters hate and utterly unwilling to challenge the bloated and ever-expanding defense budget.Citing the analysis of William Hartung and Many Smithberger, the Milwaukee Independent described that budget thus: “As of 2019, the annual Pentagon base budget, plus war budget, plus nuclear weapons in the Department of Energy, plus military spending by the Department of Homeland Security, plus interest on deficit military spending, and other military spending totaled $1.25 trillion . . .”
Indeed, as Alexander Sammon points out in the American Prospect, Democratic majorities were crucial this summer to the defeat of three separate bills, introduced by progressive Democrats, to reduce military spending and/or undo the militarization of police departments. These included amendments in both the Senate and the House to the National Defense Authorization Act, diverting 10 percent of the Department of Defense budget to health care, education and jobs; as well as a Senate proposal to end the 1033 Program, which allows the Pentagon to transfer military gear to the police. The amendment’s defeat in the House was especially an outrage, Sammon notes, in that the Dems hold a majority in the House and could have passed it.
“If Democrats are going to enact anything that resembles their own agenda,” Sammon writes, “they’re going to have to aim way higher than cutting defense to near Obama-era highs. Taking military spending not to pre-Trump but to pre-9/11 levels should be a starting point. Democratic voters abhor the War on Terror; it’s what helped deliver Obama the presidency back in 2008. It’s incumbent on Joe Biden to deliver on that preference, not just to end engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan but to bring an end to the bloated defense budgets of the War on Terror era. His silence on the proposal even in the thick of a campaign against Trump sends a troubling message.”
Climate, weather extremes, threaten nuclear reactors, and costs of preparing for them are increasing
Dozens of US nuclear power plants at risk due to climate change: Moody’s, S and P Global, Author Steven Dolley Washington Editor, Keiron Greenhalgh 19 Aug 20
37 GW of nuclear capacity at risk from flooding
48 GW at risk from heat, water stress
Merchant plants have fewer options to recover mitigation costs
Washington — Dozens of US nuclear power plants, comprising nearly half the country’s operational nuclear generating capacity, “will face growing credit risks” in the next 10 to 20 years due to flooding, hurricanes, heat stress and other predicted impacts of climate change, Moody’s Investors Service said in a report Aug. 18.
“The consequences of climate change can affect every aspect of nuclear plant operations – from fuel handling and power and steam generation to maintenance, safety systems and waste processing,” the report said, noting that “the severity of these risks will vary by region, with the ultimate credit impact depending on the ability of plant operators to invest in mitigating measures to manage these risks.”
Moody’s did not specify mitigation measures that are being, or should be, taken.
Water cooling needs expose plants to the risk of flooding, sea-level rise and hurricanes, and “about 37 gigawatts (GW) of US nuclear capacity [have] elevated exposure to flood risk,” Moody’s said.
Also, the report noted, “rising heat and water stress can have an adverse impact on plant operations,” with “about 48 GW of nuclear capacity [having] elevated exposure to combined rising heat and water stress.”
“Regulated or cost-based nuclear plants,” comprising about 55 GW of capacity in the US, “face elevated heat and water stress across most locations, with moderate to high risk of floods, hurricanes, and sea level rise for certain coastal plants,” Moody’s said. However, it added: “The credit impact of these climate risks is likely to be more modest for operators of these nuclear plants, relative to market-based plants, because they have the ability to recoup costs through rate recovery mechanisms.”
By contrast, “market-based plants,” with a total of about 44 GW of capacity, “face elevated heat stress and more water stress than regulated/cost-based plants, with fewer plants at risk of floods and hurricanes,” it said.
The highest risk, or “red flag,” category includes plants that are “highly exposed to historical and/or projected risks, indicating high potential for negative impacts,” Moody’s said.
According to the report, five plants with a combined capacity of about 9.1 GW are in the red flag category for floods. Some 13 plants with a combined capacity of about 23.8 GW were found to be at red-flag risk for heat stress. The categories of hurricanes, sea level rise and water stress each had one plant expected to be at red-flag risk.
Because some US nuclear units “are seeking to extend their operations by 20, or even 40 years,” Moody’s said, “operators will have to consider these risks when implementing resilience measures.”………. https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/081820-dozens-of-us-nuclear-power-plants-at-risk-due-to-climate-change-moodys
Climate change a problem for nuclear waste dumps
Climate change included in nuclear waste study, Dryden now, August 2020 by Mike Aiken Experts with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization are adjusting their forecasts for the Ignace area, so they include the possibility of more rainfall. The adjustment will allow for climate change, including the possibility of extreme weather and increased flooding.
“This is the first time this modelling work has been done for a potential repository location and any assessment of sites for the safe storage of used nuclear fuels must take into account the potential future impact of climate change on its infrastructure,” said Kelly Liberda, who is a senior engineer with Golder Associates, who are working on the site selection process.
“While it’s difficult to project the extent to which precipitation could fluctuate in specific geographic areas, the NMWO is taking steps to anticipate the most likely scenarios,” Liberda added.
Based on a multi-model assessment of publicly available data, the Golder Associates study found that both one-day probable maximum precipitation and one-day rainfall events in the Ignace study area are projected to increase in the 2050s and 2080s. …….
Global heating now posing physical and financial risks to U.S. nuclear reactors
|
A new report from Moody’s shows that a warming world may cause more service disruptions in the US. Climate change—particularly intense heat—is advancing so rapidly that it poses physical as well as credit risks to America’s aging nuclear fleet, a new report from Moody’s Investors Service finds. “Our plants are fairly hardened to severe weather,” said David Kamran, a projects and infrastructure analyst at Moody’s and the lead author of the report. “But climate change is moving quickly.” ……… in 2011, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission asked domestic plants to conduct their own assessments of risks from climate change and other natural hazards. A 2019 Bloomberg review of correspondence between the commission and owners of 60 plants concerning those assessments found that 54 of their facilities weren’t designed to handle the flood risk they now face. ……. The new report is the result of an analysis conducted by Four Twenty Seven Inc, a climate risk data company Moody’s acquired last year. The group evaluated the potential effects of heat stress, water stress, hurricanes, flooding, and rising sea levels on 57 US nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. It found that while a handful of plants—including Cooper Nuclear Station in Nemaha, Neb. and Prairie Island in Goodhue, Minn.—face severe risk from floods, far more either will face or already face “red flag” conditions from heat. Nuclear plants are cooled by water, and in times of intense heat and drought, water resources can become either too warm or too scarce, forcing shutdowns. This has already happened, and not just in the South: in 2012, Dominion Energy Inc’s Millstone nuclear plant in Waterford, Conn. The report predicts that nuclear plants in the Rocky Mountain states, the Colorado River region, and California face the highest levels of water stress risk going forward. …… the report was meant to highlight the extent of the environmental pressures plants will have to adapt to withstand if they want to operate consistently in the coming decades. Resisting those stresses is potentially expensive— even more expensive than the plants have currently estimated, he said: “In certain cases they will need to make investments to further reinforce their plants and they need to have money in their cap-ex funds to do that.” https://www.livemint.com/news/world/nuclear-plants-face-more-heat-risk-than-they-re-prepared-to-handle-11597848362280.html |
|
Bill McKibben not sure that Kamala Harris will be strong on addressing climate change
|
We’re in the Kamala Harris era now, and so far, so good. Of the four people on the major-party Presidential tickets, she appears to be the most energetic and normal………. Listening to Joe Biden speak, I feel a constant mild apprehension about what may emerge; Harris relaxes me.
Given the very real possibility that she’ll be at or near the pinnacle of our politics for somewhere between four and sixteen years, it’s worth asking how she will handle the gravest crisis that looms over our planet. That’s not the same as asking if she should be elected, because, on climate issues, a shrink-wrapped pallet of frozen Ore-Ida French fries would be a vast improvement on the incumbent. But it’s going to take an unflinching, unrelenting effort to transform America’s energy system and lead a similar process globally. Is she committed to that?
Her defenders point to a number of powerful statements that she made over the course of her Presidential primary campaign. She’d eliminate the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal. She’d tell the Department of Justice to investigate oil and gas companies. ………
Harris has been particularly outspoken about environmental injustice: just six days before she got the V.P. nod, she joined Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to introduce the Climate Equity Act, which, as the Times explained, “would create a dedicated Office of Climate and Environmental Justice Accountability within the White House and require the federal government to rate the effect that every environmental legislation or regulation would have on low-income communities.”
If there’s a rub, it’s that, to date, she hasn’t been that eager to really stand up to power on this issue. ……. What will she do if she becomes Vice-President? I imagine that her courage will depend on the climate movement’s success in eroding the political power of the oil companies. The weaker the fossil-fuel conglomerates become, the less scary they are. (Oil barons understand this, which is why they’re spending large sums to reëlect Trump). My guess is that Harris is a run-of-the mill politician, who will go where the footing is easiest. ………. (Note to Joe Biden.) The Sunrise Movement—the group of under-thirties who organized the sit-in at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office that served as a coming-out party for the Green New Deal—produced a YouTube video for Markey last week, which may be my favorite political ad of all time. (Watch till the end for one of the best knife twists in campaign history). If Markey wins, he will go back to the Senate a national progressive hero; more to the point, he will have demonstrated that truly taking on climate change can pay off politically. That lesson won’t be lost on anyone, Harris included. ………. Obvious but important: a new study from Climate Central found that as temperatures rise, so does demand for air-conditioning. It projects that, by 2050, demand for air-conditioning will rise in the United States by fifty-nine per cent—and far more than that around the world. That is why we need highly efficient air-source heat pumps, which also cool air, and why we need enormous amounts of renewable electricity to power it all. …… Scoreboard ⬇️ Big number on the board this week: a hundred and thirty degrees Fahrenheit (54.4 degrees Celsius), which is the highest reliably recorded temperature ever on planet Earth. It happened over the weekend, in California’s Death Valley, which is also the place where the nominal Earth temperature record of a hundred and thirty-four degrees Fahrenheit was set, in 1931. That number, though, has been disputed ever since, and the great weather historian Christopher Burt published a lengthy investigation, in 2016, proving it could not have happened. For now, a hundred and thirty degrees is the mark—but don’t expect it to last. ……..Extraordinarily bad fire news from across the planet. In the Amazon, fires are burning at a rate not seen for a decade. In Siberia, fires may be burning at a rate we’ve never previously seen—and the heating, drying region may be on the verge of moving into a new and extreme “fire regime.” In Colorado and elsewhere in the American West, this year’s fire season has begun in earnest. The forests surrounding Hanging Lake—one of the state’s premier tourist sites—almost burned. The fourteen-year-old climate activist Haven Coleman reports via Twitter: “Even inside my house it’s hazy. . . . Feels like I’m being cornered, trapped. Stuck home since there’s covid everywhere, but NOW my home is becoming unbreathable. Everything sucks. Ugh.” Indeed. By midweek, evacuations were under way in California, where fires were threatening the city of Vacaville and other parts of Napa and Sonoma. …….The two-thousands were, officially, the hottest decade on record, up 0.39 degrees Celsius from the previous decade, which is a huge change in ten years’ time. It’s an urgent reminder that the next decade may be our final chance to take serious climate action A new study in Nature confirms that the effect of the pandemic on the planet’s temperature was negligible—greenhouse-gas emissions fell, but much of the smog that tends to cool the planet also disappeared. “These results highlight that without underlying long-term system-wide decarbonization of economies, even massive shifts in behaviour, only lead to modest reductions in the rate of warming,” the authors wrote. They also, however, noted some good news: “Pursuing a green stimulus recovery out of the post-covid-19 economic crisis can set the world on track for keeping the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement within sight.” |
|
NuScam’s not so small nuclear reactors need $1.4 billion subsidy, and might not be so safe
Smaller, cheaper [?] reactor aims to revive nuclear industry, but design problems raise safety concerns, Science, By Adrian Cho, Aug. 18, 2020 Engineers at NuScale Power believe they can revive the moribund U.S. nuclear industry by thinking small. Spun out of Oregon State University in 2007, the company is striving to win approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the design of a new factory-built, modular fission reactor meant to be smaller, safer, and cheaper than the gigawatt behemoths operating today. But even as that 4-year process culminates, reviewers have unearthed design problems, including one that critics say undermines NuScale’s claim that in an emergency, its small modular reactor (SMR) would shut itself down without operator intervention.The issues are typical of the snags new reactor designs run into on the road to approval, says Michael Corradini, a nuclear engineer at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “I don’t think these things are show-stoppers.” However, M. V. Ramana, a physicist who studies public policy at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and has been critical of NuScale, says the problems show the company has oversold the claim that its SMRs are “walk-away safe.” “They have given you the standard by which to evaluate them and they’re failing,” Ramana says.
Passive safety?
Normally, convection circulates water—laced with boron to tune the nuclear reaction—through the core of NuScale’s reactor (left). If the reactor overheats, it shuts down and valves release steam into the containment vessel, where it conducts heat to a surrounding pool and condenses (center). The water flows back into the core, keeping it safely submerged (right). But the condensed water can be low in boron, and reviewers worried it could cause the reactor to spring back to life………..
NuScale’s likely first customer, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), has delayed plans to build a NuScale plant, which would include a dozen of the reactors, at the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Idaho National Laboratory. The $6.1 billion plant would now be completed by 2030, 3 years later than previously planned, says UAMPS spokesperson LaVarr Webb. ……… The delay will give UAMPS more time to develop its application for an NRC license to build and operate the plant, Webb says. The deal depends on DOE contributing $1.4 billion to the cost of the plant, he adds.
……… A NuScale reactor—which would be less than 25 meters high, hold about one-eighth as much fuel as a large power reactor, and generate less than one-tenth as much electric power—would rely on natural convection to circulate the water
……….. In March, however, a panel of independent experts found a potential flaw in that scheme. To help control the chain reaction, the reactor’s cooling water contains boron, which, unlike water, absorbs neutrons. But the steam leaves the boron behind, so the element will be missing from the water condensing in the reactor and containment vessel, the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) noted. When the boron-poor water re-enters the core, it could conceivably revive the chain reaction and possibly melt the core, ACRS concluded in a report on its 5–6 March meeting.https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/smaller-cheaper-reactor-aims-revive-nuclear-industry-design-problems-raise-safety
Biggest bribery and money-laundering bust in Ohio history, but the crooked pro nuclear law still stands!
Opinion: How bad nuclear plant bailout legislation got passed
Now the law is forcing Ohio taxpayers to cough up $1.3 billion in subsidies to prop up two aging nuclear plants – quashing cheaper natural gas and zero-emissions renewables like wind and solar. It also memorialized taxpayer subsidies for ailing coal plants – including, because Householder and his alleged co-conspirators were apparently feeling neighborly, for a coal plant across the border in Indiana.
But let’s not lose sight of FirstEnergy. The opaque electric utility had already long shirked accountability for its actions, cloaking itself in expendable subsidiaries and opposing virtually any measure to improve Ohio’s air and water, which the utility has long been responsible for befouling. This time, to protect its toxic nuclear and coal assets, the company apparently happily engaged in what even the scheme’s conspirators allegedly openly referred to as “pay to play,” buying Ohio lawmakers for a song compared to the $1.3 billion the utility now stands to skim from Ohioans’ pockets.
We have yet to see how many more dominoes fall. There’s Sam “The Randazzler” Randazzo, the supposed ex-lobbyist and current public utilities commission chair, who seems to have much to answer for in the scheme. And FirstEnergy, it appears, didn’t stop at allegedly buying Ohio politicians. Even after the law passed, it spent another $38 million in an apparent dark-money campaign to make sure it’d stopped Ohio’s vital transition to a clean energy economy – the prospect of thousands of new clean jobs, not to mention saving the Earth, apparently not enough when compared to FirstEnergy profit margins and executives’ Christmas bonuses
Even as the feds continue following the money, we know what must happen: Gov. DeWine, who unenthusiastically signed the bill, is now calling for its repeal – a crucial first step toward righting this eye-popping wrong. As we now know, courtesy of the FBI and Justice Department, supporting these ailing power plants was nothing more than a successful bid to line executives’ pockets – and, it seems, buy the house speaker a vacation home in Florida. As we continue to learn who knew what when, erasing this law will clear the way for cleaner, far cheaper, truly market-competitive resources like natural gas and renewables to power our homes and businesses.
Ohioans deserve better – more honest politicians, truly transparent electricity providers, cleaner air and water. Repealing this law, and holding our officials to account, is the way to get there.
Jigar Shah is president of Generate Capital, a San Francisco-based finance company that builds, owns and operates renewable energy infrastructure.
High financial risks in nuclear power – from global heating
Climate change poses high credit risks for nuclear power plants, Moody’s says, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-moody-s-powerplants/climate-change-poses-high-credit-risks-for-nuclear-power-plants-moodys-says-idUSKCN25E2A5 (Reuters) Reporting by Diptendu Lahiri in Bengaluru; Editing by Steve Orlofsky, 19 Aug 20
– Credit risks associated with climate change for nuclear power plant operators in the United States will rise over the next 10 to 20 years, Moody’s Investor Service said on Tuesday.Climate change can affect every aspect of nuclear plant operations like fuel handling, power and steam generation, maintenance, safety systems and waste processing, the credit rating agency said.
However, the ultimate credit impact will depend upon the ability of plant operators to invest in mitigating measures to manage these risks, it added.
Close proximity to large water bodies increase the risk of damage to plant equipment that helps ensure safe operation, the agency said in a note.
Moody’s noted that about 37 gigawatts (GW) of U.S. nuclear capacity is expected to have elevated exposure to flood risk and 48 GW elevated exposure to combined rising heat and water stress caused by climate change.
Nuclear plants seeking to extend their operations by 20, or even 40 years, beyond their existing 40-year licenses face this climate hazard and may require capital investment adjustments, Moody’s said.
“Some of these investments will help prepare for the increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events.”
U.S. Air Force mulls getting hypersonic nuclear weapons
US Air Force may have accidentally revealed interest in hypersonic nuke, Defense News By: Valerie Insinna 19 Aug 20, WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has issued, and quietly revoked, a solicitation to industry seeking technologies that would support a hypersonic glide vehicle capable of traversing intercontinental ranges, potentially signaling the military’s interest in a hypersonic nuclear weapon.
According to an Aug. 12 request for information first reported by Aviation Week, the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center sought ideas for potential upgrades to intercontinental ballistic missiles, including a “thermal protection system that can support [a] hypersonic glide to ICBM ranges.”
The items listed as potential ICBM upgrades were all marked “unclassified/for official use only,” which notes information that — while not secret — is not normally released to the public. The RFI was then withdrawn after Aviation Week began inquiring about it, the report noted.
Asked about the RFI on Wednesday, Lt. Gen. Richard Clark, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said the service’s next-generation ICBMs — known as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent — will not be available as a hypersonic variant when it is fielded in the late 2020s…………
As the sole bidder in the GBSD competition, Northrop Grumman is expected to win an estimated $85 billion over the life of the program. A contract award is slated to occur by September, although Northrop CEO Kathy Warden said in April that she expected a decision this month. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2020/08/19/the-air-force-might-be-eyeing-a-hypersonic-nuclear-weapon/
Joe Biden will ,be just as pro nuclear as Trump- maybe worse?
|
Nuclear proponent James Conca, writing in that generally pro nuclear publication, Forbes, is jubilant that the Democrats, under Joe Biden , will be staunchly pro nuclear : “The idea that Republican Administrations are pro-nuclear and Democratic ones are anti-nuclear is one of those enduring myths……. nuclear has no real constituency.
……. That said, there has been some recent political and legislative movement on nuclear energy, including passage of the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, Lifting of the Prohibition on Nuclear Funding, adoption of the Democrat’s America’s Newest Climate Plan that includes nuclear, and DOE’s funding of the Advancing Nuclear Research initiative and the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Project.
The [ Biden] Plan calls for “leveraging the carbon-pollution free energy provided by existing sources like nuclear and hydropower.” The Plan also calls to “Create a Advanced Research Projects Agency on Climate, a new, cross-agency ARPA-C to target affordable, game-changing technologies to help America achieve our 100% clean energy target, including… advanced nuclear reactors …..
Many are questioning how much Biden’s VP choice, Kamala Harris, supports his plan for nuclear. In one of the few insights into her thoughts on the subject, when she was asked d “Do you support the use of nuclear energy?” she answered, “Yes, temporarily while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives.”
Not the most ringing endorsement, but now that she is hooked up with the ticket, it’s likely she will endorse Biden’s plan. The Democratic Party Platform, still in draft form, also calls for a technology-neutral approach, including new and existing nuclear, so again, she is likely to adopt that as well. ….. So expect an up-turn in nuclear energy in a Biden-Harris Administration. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/08/17/what-will-a-biden-harris-administration-do-for-nuclear-energy/#1ca07b4a1dd9 |
|
USA’s nuclear weapons – not the best way to protect Taiwan
|
Do US Nuclear Weapons Help Protect Taiwan?, Union of Concerned Scientists
GREGORY KULACKI, CHINA PROJECT MANAGER AND SENIOR ANALYST | AUGUST 17, 2020, In an earlier post I explained there is a risk the United States and China could go to war over Taiwan. The United States is prepared to use nuclear weapons to win that war. Some believe that helps protect Taiwan. But does it?
Shall we play a game?At the end of the 1983 movie War Games, a massive US Department of Defense computer plays out every possible nuclear war scenario looking for a way to win. All of them lead to the same dismal end; a global nuclear holocaust. The computer concludes nuclear war is “a strange game” where “the only winning move is not to play.” Six months after the movie was released, US President Ronald Reagan told a joint session of Congress, “A nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” He repeated it many times afterwards, including in a speech at Fudan University in Shanghai. Unfortunately, US war gamers never let go of the idea that a nuclear war can be won, especially if the adversary is China. I can understand why. China has a few hundred nuclear weapons. The United States has thousands. The United States also has what are called tactical, non-strategic or low-yield nuclear weapons that China does not have. Some US officials argue if the United States used these low-yield nuclear weapons it would be difficult for China to retaliate without risking escalation to a full scale nuclear war: a war China would lose because its arsenal is so small. They seem to believe China would be unwilling to take that risk even though China has promised to retaliate if attacked with any type of nuclear weapon. Limited nuclear warThe reason the US war planners think about using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan war is because the United States might lose a conventional fight. They worry China’s conventional forces cannot be stopped without nuclear weapons. This isn’t a new concern. President Eisenhower faced a similar choice during the Taiwan Strait Crisis of the 1950s. …….
Past and prologueToday, the rapid deterioration of US-China relations, disturbing changes in Chinese policy towards Hong Kong and a provocative visit of a US official to Taiwan suggest a new crisis is brewing. As talk of a new Cold War with China increases, a careful look back at the old one may be helpful. ……..
history suggests more nations may be willing to support a US military effort to defend Taiwan if the United States took the option to start a nuclear war off the table. It may seem counterintuitive, but canceling plans to reintroduce US tactical nuclear weapons into Asia and declaring the United States would never use nuclear weapons first, under any circumstances, may be the best way to strengthen Taiwan’s defense. https://allthingsnuclear.org/gkulacki/do-us-nuclear-weapons-help-protect-taiwan
|
|
|
Will Ohio finally be able to use its wind resources, now that the nuclear corruption is being exposed?
|
Will Ohio Finally Inherit Its Wind? https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/64623-rsn-will-ohio-finally-inherit-its-wind?fbclid=IwAR0iFghBoz4O6r7yMYGVnrXjyQ27vmsal94R3U6STsPlmM2TWvPOriQ4IiMBy Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News, 17 August 20
 midst an astonishing billion-dollar nuke reactor corruption scandal, one of the world’s richest wind resources—the key to Ohio’s economic and ecological future—is being trashed by a single sentence.
According to the American Wind Energy Association, Ohio is being robbed of $4 billion worth of industrial development, thousands of jobs, and a wealth of cheap, emissions-free energy by a single easily-removable clause in the Ohio Code. How? In 2014, without public hearings, pro-fossil/nuke legislators slipped into law a requirement that wind turbines be sited at least 1300 feet from property lines. The previous requirement was 600 feet. There are no meaningful economic, ecological, or health/safety imperatives served by the additional set-back footage. No other state has such a requirement. But by vastly expanding the land required for turbine siting, that single sentence stopped some $4 billion in pre-approved northern Ohio wind farm development. Ohio’s “North Coast” has steady winds blowing over flat fields whose farmers desperately need the fat checks that come with turbine leasing. The region is uniquely crisscrossed with transmission lines feeding nearby urban areas where the power is consumed. Ironically, Ohio is already a leading manufacturing center for the turbine industry being blocked within its own borders. The proposed arrays are set to create thousands of jobs, save hundreds of family farms, and provide decades of reliable, clean electricity at rates far below current subsidized fossil/nuke prices. The employment created by the wind construction projects would far exceed that at the Davis-Besse and Perry reactors. The nuke bailout is now under intense fire. Because House Bill 6 has been tainted by the $60 million in bribes given House Speaker Larry Householder to grease it through the legislature, even pro-nuke governor Mike DeWine wants it rescinded. It comes in the wake of some $9 billion in “stranded cost” bailout money sucked up by Ohio’s nukes starting in 1999. But if HB6 goes away as promised, DeWine and pro-reactor legislators will likely introduce a new, slightly altered bailout. As a popular concession, they might drop the previously included handout for two coal burners or avoid attacking Ohio’s highly successful energy efficiency programs. But the one move that could completely revamp Ohio’s energy future would be to restore its wind setback to levels commonly accepted nearly everywhere else. Opening Ohio’s energy markets to cheap wind power would undercut subsidized, fossil/nuke-inflated electric rates, restore the jobs deleted by shutting the reactors, and spur long-term economic growth as virtually nothing else would. Will Ohio’s safe energy movement grab the opportunity to make all that happen? Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman have co-authored numerous books on election protection and the environment appearing at www.freepress.org along with Bob’s Fitrakis Files. Harvey’s People’s Spiral of US History awaits Trump’s departure at www.solartopia.org, where his Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth also resides. |
|
Nuclear waste should no longer be exempt from environmental laws
How Bedrock Environmental Law Can Break the Nuclear Waste Logjam, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/insight-how-bedrock-environmental-law-can-break-the-nuclear-waste-logjam Geoffrey Fettus, NRDC 17 Aug 20
The 30-year battle over nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain in Nevada shows it’s time for the Atomic Energy Act to be amended. Geoffrey Fettus, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, says Congress should pass legislation to end the exemption of nuclear waste from hazardous waste and other bedrock environmental laws.
For more than 30 years, Congress and the federal government have tried again and again to shove our nation’s spent nuclear fuel down a hole at Yucca Mountain, Nev. It’s time to use our foundational environmental laws get out of this seemingly impenetrable maze.
Congress should amend the Atomic Energy Act to remove exemptions from environmental laws for radioactive waste, a proposal that got an important boost from the House Select Committee on Climate Crisis as it called for a task force of federal, state, local, and tribal officials to study the implications of this idea.
Earlier this year, President Trump bowed to reality and abandoned efforts to force the radioactive waste on Nevada, the Yucca mirage finally dissipated. What’s clear now is that trying to force Nevada, or Utah, or New Mexico, or Tennessee (or any other state) to take the entirety of the nation’s most toxic nuclear waste won’t work. Continuing down that path will get us nowhere.
Instead of seeing recalcitrant states as the problem, what if we acknowledge the reality that they must be a key part of the solution for nuclear waste?
Feds Have Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Radioactive Materials
Remarkably, our bedrock environmental laws don’t cover nuclear waste, and they should. The Atomic Energy Act started the nuclear industry and was enacted years before our key pollution safeguards were established.
Crucially, and mostly for nuclear weapons reasons, the AEA gave the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over all radioactive materials, including radioactive waste. When Congress enacted our foundational environmental laws decades later, each of them included an exemption that excludes radioactive waste except in limited or marginal ways.
This is the original sin that must be rectified.
To explain this pernicious problem, when Congress considered nuclear waste in its precedent setting 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it just accepted the AEA’s sole federal authority and nuclear waste’s exclusion from environmental law as the way of the world. Only a few years later, for the sake of political expedience, Congress cut short a well thought out siting process and required the Yucca Mountain repository as the only option.
This was supposed to expedite the process, but not surprisingly, it exploded in controversy and eventually ground to a halt. And now it has finally, truly, died. But nuclear waste remains just as toxic and problematic as ever.
If nuclear waste were covered by environmental laws, i.e., without the current exemptions that limit EPA and state authority, protective federal health and welfare standards can combine with state-level decision-making over where and how the waste could be stored within its borders.
Amending the AEA and removing the provisions that exempt nuclear waste from our hazardous waste and water laws would give us our best chance to garner public acceptance for a process to find safe, technically sound storage sites for toxic nuclear waste—waste that will remain dangerous to human health for hundreds of thousands of years.
Why This Can Work
Consider how things could change if environmental laws could operate as intended.
Under regular environmental law (that covers pollution of air, water, land), the EPA sets strong standards commensurate to the harm of the pollutant. States can then assume the management of that program (or leave it to the EPA) and set additional, stricter standards if they wish.
A state can have strong regulatory authority to set terms for how much waste it might dispose of, how the facility will operate, and the requisite power to enforce those protective standards and protect its citizens—all things it cannot do now for radioactive waste.
To be clear, the standards for high-level radioactive waste will need to be special and extraordinarily protective, and the rulemaking for those standards will be quite a technical ordeal. But, there’s no getting around doing that hard work; Congress tried to take a short cut and it failed.
Once those standards are in place, the EPA and the states can, as in other instances, share the necessary roles of guarding public safety and welfare from radioactive waste. This institutional framework allows for both scientific defensibility of potential sites and, importantly, public acceptance of the process.
The Task Falls to Congress
For far too long many members of Congress and officials in Washington fought any efforts like this as they sought the quick fix of Yucca. Now there’s evidence of change. The ambitious report from the House Select Committee on Climate Crisis included this key recommendation:
Congress should establish a task force comprised of federal, state, local, and tribal officials to study the implications of amending the Atomic Energy Act to remove exemptions from environmental laws for spent fuel and high-level waste, while maintaining federal minimum standards.
Lawmakers should pick up this recommendation, create just such a task force, and move forward with this plan. Will this work? Yes—but it will take both hard work and time.
One thing I can guarantee is that the current approach isn’t working and won’t ever work. No single state is going to willingly accept the entirety of the nation’s nuclear burden without any way to protect their citizens; we have decades of evidence for this proposition. No amount of stomping of feet in the halls of Congress can change that.
Author Information
Geoffrey Fettus is a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean energy program in Washington, D.C. He litigates in federal courts and testifies before Congress on the beginning and end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Prior to joining the NRDC, he was a staff attorney at the New Mexico Environmental Law Center and an assistant attorney general in New Mexico’s Office of the Attorney General.
1 This Month
26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (269)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
