nuclear-news

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

France’s declining nuclear production

Les Echos 4th Jan 2021, Nuclear: EDF production at its lowest for nearly thirty years. The year
2020 was marked by extremely low nuclear production, very slightly above
335 TWh. The impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the maintenance of power
plants and the extent of the work already in progress explain this
situation, which should continue in 2021 and 2022.

https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/energie-environnement/nucleaire-la-production-dedf-au-plus-bas-depuis-pres-de-30-ans-1278018

January 7, 2021 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Legal case on extradition of Julian Assange an alarming precedent for freedom of speech

January 4, 2021 Posted by | civil liberties, legal, UK | 1 Comment

LGBTQ Activists Jump Into the Atlantic to support Treaty banning nuclear weapons

LGBTQ Activists Jump Into the Atlantic to Protest Nuclear Weapons, Gay City News,  By Matt Tracy & Donna Aceto– 3 Jan 2012, LGBTQ activists Brendan Fay and Robert Croonquist huddled with other New York-based members of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and ran into the Atlantic Ocean at Far Rockaway on New Year’s Day as part of a public demonstration against nuclear weapons.

The activists, who plunged into the freezing waters at Rockaway Beach and 92nd Street, are pushing the City Council to move forward with a resolution asking the city comptroller to divest pension funds of public employees from sources of nuclear weapons and a bill creating an advisory committee that would evaluate nuclear disarmament and other issues geared towards making New York City a nuclear weapons-free zone. Those bills were proposed by out gay Councilmember Daniel Dromm of Queens, who has welcomed the support of dozens of co-sponsors in both cases.

The activists are asking out gay City Council Speaker Corey Johnson to advance the measures before the Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons becomes international law on January 22. …………

Croonquist, a former public school teacher who is a member of Rise and Resist and the Reclaim Pride Coalition, said he was driven to jump into the ocean when he thought about the high school students he taught at Jamaica High School in Queens.

“This legislation would divert my pension’s investments from weapons of mass destruction and redirect them to things that bring true security — investments in food, housing, climate, infrastructure and healthcare. ………… https://www.gaycitynews.com/lgbtq-activists-jump-into-the-atlantic-to-protest-nuclear-weapons/.

January 4, 2021 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Donald Trump left a hawkish nuclear weapons mess, but Joe Bideb can make alot of improvements, on his own

January 4, 2021 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear Command and Control: Session 3 of the Congressional Study Group

Nuclear Command and Control

Session 3 of the Congressional Study Group,   Wednesday, December 30, 2020  https://www.brookings.edu/research/nuclear-command-and-control/

Editor’s Note:The following is a summary of the third session of the Congressional Study Group on Foreign Relations and National Security, a program for congressional staff focused on critically engaging the legal and policy factors that define the role that Congress plays in various aspects of U.S. foreign relations and national security policy.

On May 7, 2020, the Congressional Study Group on Foreign Relations and National Security convened online to discuss the question of the command and control of U.S. nuclear weapons. At present, the president has the unilateral authority to choose to use nuclear weapons, and many assume that this is a result of his Article II powers under the Constitution. But is this assumption correct? Are there ways Congress can limit when and how the president uses nuclear weapons?

To discuss this topic, the working group was joined by three outside experts Professor Mary DeRosa of Georgetown University Law Center, a former legal advisor to the National Security Council; Chris Fonzone, a partner at Sidley Austin and another former legal advisor to the National Security Council; and Professor Matt Waxman of Columbia Law School, who is also an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and has previously held senior positions in the National Security Council and U.S. Department of State. Prior to the session, the study group received several written pieces as background reading, including:

In addition, the study group coordinator Scott R. Anderson also circulated a handout (download here) on relevant legal authorities for the attendees to reference.
DeRosa began the conversation with a discussion of the constitutional authorities behind the use of nuclear weapons. While there is some debate about the exact line between congressional and presidential authority, she noted that most scholars agree that Congress could choose to exclude or limit the availability of nuclear weapons and perhaps even set some limits on how nuclear weapons are used. Moreover, congressional authorization is arguably constitutionally required for uses of nuclear weapons that are not in self-defense, particularly where outside the context of an existing armed conflict. Nuclear weapons–and particularly the first use of them–also implicate the United States’s international legal obligations, as their use necessarily raises questions about compliance with principles of distinction and proportionality. That said, while there are strong arguments in support of the conclusion that Congress can set some limits on the use of nuclear weapons–including first use–these limitations are more likely to face  constitutional issues the more they try to micromanage the president’s strategic and tactical decisions regarding the use of the armed forces.

Waxman then shifted focus to ways that Congress might be able to shape the executive branch process for deciding when and how nuclear weapons are used. While few are likely to argue with the president’s ability to use nuclear force in response to a nuclear attack, Waxman identified three problematic scenarios that might emerge in a case of nuclear first use: that the president would pursue such an action without due deliberation; that a president might give such an order, but that it is not obeyed by military personnel who believe it to be unlawful or unwise; and that a third party might try to interfere with the system to inhibit a response or trigger an unauthorized launch.

A better defined process–for example, one that requires that an order to use nuclear weapons be certified as valid by the Secretary of Defense and lawful by the Attorney General–could reduce all three of these risks by putting some limits on the president’s unilateral authority, encouraging a more deliberative and justified process that is less likely to trigger reservations, and creating a process with multiple safeguards less subject to external manipulation. Such a process could be implemented by the president by executive order or by Congress, though the latter may raise constitutional objections in some corners and runs the risk of being disregarded by administrations who maintain it is constitutional. That said, by leaving the decision-making within the executive branch, such approaches are less likely to incur constitutional objections than outright statutory prohibitions, which may make them more effective in the long run.

 

Finally, Fonzone stepped in to discuss the military chain of command, specifically in reference to the oft-discussed possibility that military personnel might disregard an impetuous order to use nuclear weapons as unlawful. The operational chain of command, he noted, runs from the President through the Secretary of Defense down to the military ranks, and is defined in substantial part by statute in addition to executive branch guidelines. While the Secretary of Defense might be removed from office for disobeying a presidential order, members of the military can face criminal sanctions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That said, this duty of obedience does not extend to “patently” or “manifestly” illegal orders, which military personnel are obligated not to follow. This bar, however, is extremely high and requires clear knowledge on the part of the servicemember. As many major policy decisions, including the use of nuclear weapons, occur on contested and complex constitutional and legal terrain, even unlawful orders are not likely to be seen as “patently” or “manifestly” illegal. Hence, one should not rely on the lawfulness exceptions to the chain of command alone as a meaningful safeguard against such conduct.

From there, the study group went into open discussion, where they raised issues and addressed questions relating to: the civilian control of nuclear technology and weapons development; international legal and policy restraints on the use of nuclear weapons; and in what circumstances the use of nuclear weapons should properly be left to the president’s unilateral authority (e.g., self-defense).

 

Visit the Congressional Study Group on Foreign Relations and National Security landing page to access notes and information on other sessions.

January 4, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Bechtel, Westinghouse and Southern Company’s hopeless case to save shambolic Wylfa nuclear project

People Against Wylfa B 31st Dec 2020,  On the last day of troubled 2020, the Westminster Government has deferred a decision on a Development Consent Order for a nuclear power station at Wylfa until the end of April 2021. This is the fourth time this has happened, and the second time in a row for Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive Horizon, to ask for a deferral.
****
The attempt to build Wylfa B has been shambolic from the start. It’s high time to abandon the foolish dream that has paralyzed Anglesey’s development since 2006. As we approach the 10th anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, the latest to be mentioned as
‘saviours’ of the radioactive poisoning project that would threaten the health of everyone on the island and beyond are three US companies.
                                                                                              ****
Here they are: Bechtel Corporation, Westinghouse and Southern Company. Here are some of the trio’s transgressions: Bechtel – recently fined nearly $58million for financial fraud with another company over a 10-year period at Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the most radioactively contaminated site in the United States. This followed a fine of $125million for low quality work on the same site in 2016.
****
Much more could be said about Bechtel. Westinghhouse and Southern Company – Westinghouse went bankrupt while trying to build Vogtle Power Station in the state of Georgia. The two AP1000 reactors of the type destined for Wylfa are five years behind Schedule, have doubled in cost to $25billion, and there is no guarantee that the power station will ever be completed. Another of their projects
was the V C Summer nuclear plant in South Carolina. It was abandoned
unfinished in 2017, and is still being paid for by taxpayers.   https://www.stop-wylfa.org/news/

January 4, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

The Shoshone Nation’s battle against nuclear racism and trespassers on indigenous land

January 4, 2021 Posted by | indigenous issues, Uranium, USA | 1 Comment

How a Soviet spy helped to avoid nuclear war

January 4, 2021 Posted by | politics international, Russia, secrets,lies and civil liberties, weapons and war | Leave a comment

With all the costs and delays – why not scrap the Wylfa nuclear project right now?

January 4, 2021 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Never mind health spending: USA aims to be Topp in Space Race

January 4, 2021 Posted by | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

Biden Wants US Back in Iran Nuclear Deal (Video) 

Biden Wants US Back in Iran Nuclear Deal (Video)   https://www.voanews.com/episode/biden-wants-us-back-iran-nuclear-deal-4531861
January 03, 2021,  
 President-elect Joe Biden says he wants the United States to return to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal — if Tehran also resumes compliance. VOA’s Diplomatic Correspondent Cindy Saine reports from Washington that experts say they expect a shift away from the Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign of crippling economic sanctions on Iran, but a U.S. return to the nuclear deal will not be easy.

January 4, 2021 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

In March 2011 Japan’s government considered evacuating the then Emperor Akihito further away from Fukushima

 

January 4, 2021 Posted by | Fukushima continuing | Leave a comment

Trump’s nuclear construction deal with Poland – strained with Biden victory ?

Poland plays down fears over nuclear power plans despite Biden victory.  Rightwing government’s relations with incoming US administration strained after Trump construction deal, Ft.com 3 Jan 2021, 

  Joe Biden’s victory in the US presidential election will not derail Washington’s co-operation with Warsaw on plans to develop its own nuclear energy sector, Poland’s climate minister has said. Donald Trump’s administration built close ties with Warsaw, where the rightwing government is led by Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s Law and Justice party.
In October the US signed an agreement to draw up a design for Poland’s proposed nuclear programme, which envisages constructing six nuclear plants with a capacity of 6-9GW in 2033-43. But relations with Mr Biden’s incoming administration have been cooler.
During his campaign, Mr Biden sparked consternation in Poland by mentioning the country in the same breath as Belarus — where Alexander Lukashenko cracked down brutally last year after claiming victory in a flawed election — and “the rise of totalitarian regimes around the world”. Poland’s president Andrzej Duda — like his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin — was among the few world leaders who did not congratulate Mr Biden on his November 3 victory until it was confirmed in mid-December by the US electoral college.

However, Michal Kurtyka, climate minister, played down concern that the change would have a significant impact on Poland’s plans.

 ……France’s EDF has held talks with Poland over the project. But the frontrunner is the US, which Poland regards as its security guarantor. The Trump administration has been pushing for American companies such as nuclear reactor maker Westinghouse and engineering group Bechtel to be involved.  ……
 Despite the climate ministry’s enthusiasm, big questions remain. One issue is timing. Many nuclear projects in the EU are far behind schedule, and just 12 years before the first plant is due on line Poland has yet to choose a location or confirm its financing model.
 “Assuming that we can have the first nuclear plant up and running in 2033 is beyond optimistic,” said Joanna Flisowska, head of Greenpeace’s climate and energy unit in Poland. “We need to replace coal power stations now, because most are already set to close by 2035 at the latest . . . So nuclear is just the wrong answer. It’s too late. It’s too expensive and it’s not really a technology that works well with renewables.”  ……  https://www.ft.com/content/5c42b1c2-f790-49ee-af0b-b3e8419be8c1
A comment on original
The nuclear nuts have found a sucker—Poland which apparently wants an investor to share risk. Which risk? The long-run risk of nuclear contamination? Where are they going to store the spent fuel? They could ask Japan. Poland sees a nuclear future just as Germany is shutting nuclear power down due to the risks. In the UK the nuclear power gambit cannot find investors because none wants the risks. The investors want indemnity from the risks. 

January 4, 2021 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Turkey’s aspirations to become a nuclear weapons power

January 4, 2021 Posted by | politics international, Turkey, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Glenn Greenwald: Julian Assange’s Imprisonment Exposes U.S. Myths About Freedom

January 4, 2021 Posted by | legal, politics international, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment