Northampton shuns business with companies involved in creating nuclear weapons, https://www.gazettenet.com/Governor-signs-home-rule-petition-36428827 By GRETA JOCHEM, Staff Writer, 9/24/2020
NORTHAMPTON — Under a new state law, Northampton is allowed to refuse contracts with companies involved in the creation of nuclear weapons.
The act comes from a home rule petition recommended by Mayor David Narkewicz and approved by the the City Council in 2019.
“Basically, under Massachusetts contracting law, you are not allowed to discriminate against one sector or industry,” Narkewicz said, explaining the need for the change.
In July, Gov. Charlie Baker signed an act into law that reads, “the city of Northampton may disqualify from an award of a contract a bidder or vendor who participates in the design, manufacture or maintenance of nuclear weapons.”
Saturday marks the United Nations’ International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. Rallies will be held in Northampton, Springfield, Sunderland and Greenfield, according to Massachusetts Peace Action. In western Massachusetts, they are hosted by a number of organizations, including The Resistance Center for Peace and Justice and Arise for Social Justice. In Northampton, for example, The Resistance Center for Peace and Justice is holding a rally at L3Harris Technologies at 11 a.m. at 50 Prince Street in Northampton. When L3 Technologies and Harris Corp. merged into L3Harris Technologies last year, the company said it created the sixth-largest defense company in the country and a top 10 defense company worldwide.
Saturday will also be “Nuclear Ban Day” in Northampton, as Narkewicz read a proclamation Thursday declaring it.
Greta Jochem can be reached at gjochem@gazettenet.com.
September 26, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Transporting the waste to the New Mexico and West Texas facilities by rail car and through major cities, including those in the Dallas-Fort Worth region, could be a Pandora’s Box of problems for North Texans
|
 Nuclear waste could travel through Dallas-Fort Worth if West Texas plan is approved Fort Worth Star Telegram, BY HALEY SAMSEL, SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 If approved by federal regulators, at least 5,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste from across the U.S. could travel through the Metroplex on its way to a West Texas storage facility that already stores low-level radioactive materials.
High-level nuclear waste refers to spent, or used, reactor fuel and waste materials that exist after the used fuel is reprocessed for disposal. The radioactive waste poses potentially harmful effects to humans and only decreases in radioactivity through decay, which can take hundreds of thousands of years, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency that regulates nuclear power plants and the storage and disposal of waste.
Activists who oppose the West Texas plan say the impact will not be limited to residents of Andrews County, where the toxic waste site owned by Waste Control Specialists already sits near the Texas-New Mexico border. The commission is considering a similar plan for a high-level waste storage facility in southeastern New Mexico, brought forward by the nuclear company Holtec.
Transporting the waste to the New Mexico and West Texas facilities by rail car and through major cities, including those in the Dallas-Fort Worth region, could be a Pandora’s Box of problems for North Texans, said Lon Burnam, a former state representative and the chair of the Tarrant Coalition for Environmental Awareness.
“We’ve created all this waste, there’s no good way to handle it, and the question is: What is the least objectionable way to handle it?” Burnam said. “But carting it all through Dallas-Fort Worth, from my perspective, is one of the worst ways to handle it. Why should we be the community that 90% of this stuff goes through on its way to either West Texas or the New Mexico side?”
For years, the U.S. Department of Energy has struggled to find a long-term storage solution for the country’s growing stockpile of radioactive waste. With no permanent destination for safe disposal, more than 80,000 metric tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste sit at the country’s commercial nuclear plants, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. ……
Texans have until Nov. 3 to submit online public comments on the report, which may be the last chance that the public has to voice opposition or support for the application…… https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article245941215.html
|
|
September 26, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
safety, USA, wastes |
Leave a comment
Amid debate over repealing House Bill 6, Energy Harbor still won’t say whether its nuclear plants are profitable
Cleveland. com Sep 25, 2020, By Jeremy Pelzer,
COLUMBUS, Ohio—State lawmakers are looking at whether to keep in place a $1.3 billion public bailout for the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear power plants along Lake Erie, a law that federal authorities say was corruptly enacted.
But throughout the debate, there’s still a glaring problem: the owner of the nuclear plants refuses to disclose whether they are profitable or not. And so far, there’s been no attempt by state lawmakers to compel the company to release its numbers before the bailout takes effect.
During last year’s debate over whether to pass the bailout as part of House Bill 6, Energy Harbor – then known as FirstEnergy Solutions – asserted it needed public subsidies or it would close the plants. But the company wouldn’t open its books to lawmakers or the public to prove that it actually needed the money, leading legislators to rely on estimates, industry averages and company officials’ word.
|
|
|
September 26, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
A look at Exelon’s 4 economically challenged nuclear plants in Illinois, S & P Global, Author, Anna Duquiatan, 25 Sep 20, Exelon Corp.-owned nuclear power plants in Illinois eyed for early retirement have had declining financial margins of late, according to an analysis using S&P Global Market Intelligence’s plant-level production cost model. ………
Exelon Generation Co. LLC announced Aug. 27 that it plans to retire its 2,346-MW Byron and 1,805-MW Dresden nuclear power stations in September 2021 and November 2021, respectively.
The Exelon Corp. subsidiary added that the 2,384-MW Braidwood Generating Station and 2,313-MW LaSalle County Generating Station are “also at high risk for premature closure,” though the company has not yet projected any closure dates for those plants………
The two-unit Dresden plant in Grundy County, the first of the four northern Illinois plants to enter service, in the early 1970s, is licensed to operate until 2029 and 2031. Braidwood in Will County, Byron in Ogle County, and LaSalle in LaSalle County all began operating in the mid- to late 1980s and are licensed to operate until the 2040s. …………..
Q2: U.S. Solar and Wind Power by the Numbers
Wrestling with the COVID-19 pandemic, solar project developers installed nearly three times as much solar power capacity in Q2’20 compared to the same period a year ago. Meanwhile, the U.S. wind industry posted one of its strongest second quarters on record in 2020, adding 2,369 MW of capacity, and the 2020 development pipeline stands strong at 30,554 MW.
Q2: U.S. Wind Power by the numbers
Essential Energy Insights – September, 2020
Numbers Utility-Scale Solar Surge Reaches 1.6 GW in Q2
Utility-Scale Solar Surge Reaches 1.6 GW in Q2
September 26, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
1 Comment
Ministers urged to support new nuclear at a critical time for the industry
The energy giant is pressing the case for a plant at Sizewell but backing from a cash-strapped government could be limited, Sky News, Ian King 23 Sept 20, This is a critical time for the UK’s nuclear energy industry.
The construction of the UK’s first new nuclear power station for a generation, Hinkley Point C in Somerset, is well advanced and EDF Energy, the French-owned energy giant building the plant, is keen to pick up the pace on its next big infrastructure project.
Sizewell C, in Suffolk, is envisaged as a replica project to Hinkley Point C.
..But The future of new nuclear build in the UK has again been thrown into doubt by
last week’s decision by Hitachi, the Japanese company, to abandon the Horizon project – which would have seen new nuclear power stations built at Wylfa Newydd on Anglesey and at Oldbury on Severn in south Gloucestershire.
Meanwhile, a cash-strapped government is unlikely to want to provide the financial support that its predecessors have given Hinkley Point C, under which EDF Energy was guaranteed a minimum price of £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh), inflation-linked, for 35 years.
September 26, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
|
 What’s next for Duane Arnold nuclear plant?, THe Gazette, 25 Sep 20,
Derecho damage prompts nuclear plant not to restart, Duane Arnold Energy Center near Palo did not restart after the Aug. 10 derecho caused “extensive” damage to its cooling towers……..
Why is it being decommissioned?
Dean Curtland, plant director, told The Gazette in 2018 Iowa’s changing energy landscape has overshadowed and outpriced Duane Arnold.
Closing the facility could save NextEra about $300 million over 21 years, with cost savings coming as early as 2021. That translates to about $42 per residential customer.
What impact did the derecho have on its decommissioning?
NextEra Energy already was planning on decommissioning Duane Arnold this year.
When the derecho caused “extensive” damage to the facility’s cooling towers, NextEra opted against restarting the plant so close to the Oct. 30 decommissioning date.
Replacing the cooling towers with fewer than three months until decommissioning was “not feasible,” Robbins said last month.
What is happening now that the plant is shut down?
The decommissioning process is underway as employees remove nuclear material from the facility
“There’s the nuclear fuel that was in the reactor and then nuclear fuel that was in a pool — what is called the spent fuel pool,” Robbins said. “We’ve been moving a lot of the fuel out of that pool and putting it in a storage facility on the site.”
How long will the decommissioning process take?
The process involves several steps, starting with removing nuclear material from the site.
After nuclear material goes into the spent fuel pool, it can go into dry storage.
After all the fuel is removed, officials have 60 years to decommission the facility……….
Are there any other nuclear power plants in Iowa?
Duane Arnold was the last nuclear power plant in the state. The closest nuclear power plant is in Cordova, Ill., about 20 miles northeast of Moline along the Mississippi River.
Comments: (319) 398-8394; john.steppe@thegazette.com https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/duane-arnold-energy-center-nuclear-plant-iowa-palo-ia-decommission-20200925
|
|
September 26, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
decommission reactor, USA |
Leave a comment
|
 Age of uncertainty, Dutch nuclear bombshell and why its decision-time for Big Oil, Our weekly curation of the must-read news and analysis from the-week-that-was in the global renewable energy industry. https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/age-of-uncertainty-dutch-nuclear-bombshell-and-why-its-decision-time-for-big-oil/2-1-882244 , 25 September 2020 , By Andrew Lee
As Covid-19 continues to dominate political and economic agendas, Recharge carried a sobering reminder of the other emergency facing our world leaders – and some timely insights into how they may respond.
The latest Energy Transition Outlook from Wood Mackenzie puts at $25 trillion over 20 years the cost of investment in carbon-cutting technologies – and follows with the sting in the tail that even that won’t be enough to avoid damaging global warming without drastic measure to replace heavy-emitting industrial plant.
Such epic challenges require action from the very top, and there was a cautious welcome for an announcement from China’s leader Xi Jinping that the world’s biggest polluter would aim to be carbon net-neutral by 2060.
Although lacking in detail, Xi’s pledge is likely to add further momentum to China’s world-leading renewable energy growth, and Recharge revealed how key power sector players are already planning how the nation can reach a terawatt or more of wind and solar in just five years.
Trump v Biden: how the election will impact US renewables policy and the global climate battle Read more
So to that other economic superpower, the US, where Recharge set out just how stark is the contrast between the two contenders in the upcoming Presidential election – Donald Trump, who views the climate emergency as a non-issue, and Joe Biden, who has pledged to rejoin the Paris Agreement withing 24 hours of taking office.
Meanwhile, while by no means a superpower (expect possibly in political black comedy and offshore wind), the UK still has plenty to say about the energy transition, especially in its role as notional host of next year’s COP 26.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson told a UN roundtable that Britain would make a ‘big bet’ on hydrogen as part of its drive to net-zero, only to be reminded by a leading UK renewables body that his government has yet to come up with a strategy for the key energy transition fuel.
Nuclear power, that most controversial piece of the energy transition jigsaw puzzle, was back in the headlines this week in a thoroughly left-field fashion.
Recharge reported how the Dutch energy minister is preparing to launch a consultation on the prospect of new nuclear plants in the Netherlands, after perusing a report that claims they can be more cost-effective (contentious) and safer (downright bizarre) than wind or solar projects.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson told a UN roundtable that Britain would make a ‘big bet’ on hydrogen as part of its drive to net-zero, only to be reminded by a leading UK renewables body that his government has yet to come up with a strategy for the key energy transition fuel.
Nuclear power, that most controversial piece of the energy transition jigsaw puzzle, was back in the headlines this week in a thoroughly left-field fashion.
Recharge reported how the Dutch energy minister is preparing to launch a consultation on the prospect of new nuclear plants in the Netherlands, after perusing a report that claims they can be more cost-effective (contentious) and safer (downright bizarre) than wind or solar projects.
This was the latest in what is becoming a regular reappearance of nuclear on the energy transition agenda, including recent endorsements of the technology’s potential by the likes of Google and an apparent determination by the French to find a role for its atomic fleet in the future hydrogen economy.
Before they do anything they might regret, the Dutch may want to ask the authors of a report that claims nuclear has drained Germany of €1trn ($1.18trn) over its soon-to-end dalliance with the industry.
The world’s oil giants are rarely out of the energy transition headlines, and this week it was the turn of Total, the French supermajor, to cause the biggest splash with news that it will buy 6TWh of solar power to supply green electricity to its entire European operation.
Elsewhere peer Shell forged a renewable power supply pact with Microsoft, while a less familiar name got in on the act when Recharge revealed how China’s CNOOC has widened its offshore wind footprint and added green hydrogen to its corporate agenda.
However, in a reality check for the world’s oil giants, Recharge Editor-in-Chief Darius Snieckus challenged them to rapidly decide that the fate of the planet is more important than any vestiges of their former fossil-led business models, then act – and invest – accordingly.
|
|
September 26, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, renewable |
Leave a comment
Tug of war: Stakeholders clash over nuclear, fossil fuel addition to green energy bill Norman Harsono, The Jakarta Post Jakarta / Fri, September 25, 2020 Green energy businesses and watchdogs are up in arms over the House of Representatives’ decision to add nuclear and “new” fossil fuel technologies into a landmark green energy bill. Industry players have issued statements and held public hearings with lawmakers over the past two weeks to protest such an addition in the long-awaited New and Renewables Energy (EBT) bill, which promises legal certainty and incentives for listed industries. Nuclear energy, liquefied coal and coal gas – the latter product being pioneered by state-owned coal miner PT Bukit Asam – are all categorized as “new” but not “renewable” in the draft bill, a copy of which was obtained by The Jakarta Post.
Focus this bill on renewables,” said Halim Kalla, deputy chairman for renewables with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin), at a hearing in Jakarta on Monday with the House Commission VII overseeing energy.
Add the new energy to their respective laws [not in the bill],” Surya Darma, chairman of the Indonesian Renewable Energy Society (METI), said to lawmakers on Sept 17. “The type of energy that really does not have its own law is renewables.” METI, an umbrella organization for all local renewable energy associations, referred to the 2001 Oil and Gas law, 1997 Nuclear Energy Law and 2020 Mining Law, which covers coal.
Kadin, METI and a slew of energy watchdogs expect the bill — deliberations on which began in 2017 — to focus on spurring renewable energy use in Indonesia, a country lagging well behind its green energy commitments. Regulations stipulate that Indonesia should have reached a 17.5 percent renewable energy mix by 2019, yet the country only hit 12.36 percent that year. “This bill has been held back for three years,” analyst Jannata Giwangkara of the Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR) said on Wednesday. “It will not immediately solve the issue but it needs to be supported by derivative regulations.” WWF Indonesia climate and energy manager Indra Sari Wardhani added: “The renewables industry is still very nascent. Don’t give it more challenges and competition.”
The business and watchdogs’ pleas responded to the fact that nuclear power plants and new energy technologies have made their way into the draft bill under Article 6 and Article 7, according to the copy. The latter article outlines the role of the government, private sector, state-owned enterprises (SOE) and a “regulatory agency” in developing nuclear and new energy facilities…….
September 26, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Indonesia, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
It is the largest nuclear generating station in the world by net electrical power rating. There are seven units, all lined up along the coast line. Numbering starts at Unit 1 with the south-most unit through Unit 4, then there is a large green space in between Unit 4 and 7, then it continues with Units 6 and 5, the newest of the reactors.
The plant is owned and operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), same company which owns the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant where the nuclear disaster is still ongoing since March 2011.
The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant is a large, modern (housing the world’s first ABWR) nuclear power plant on a 4.2-square-kilometer (1,000-acre) site including land in the towns of Kashiwazaki and Kariwa in Niigata Prefecture, Japan on the coast of the Sea of Japan, from where it gets cooling water.
It was approximately 19 km (12 mi) from the epicenter of the second-strongest earthquake to occur at a nuclear plant, the Mw 6.6 July 2007 Chūetsu offshore earthquake.
Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear complex in Niigata Prefecture
September 23, 2020
Tokyo Electric Power Co. cleared a major regulatory hurdle toward restarting a nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture, but the utility’s bid to resume its operations still hangs in the balance of a series of political approvals.
The government’s nuclear watchdog concluded Sept. 23 that the utility is fit to operate the plant, based on new legally binding safety rules TEPCO drafted and pledged to follow. If TEPCO is found to be in breach of those regulations, it could be ordered to halt the plant’s operations.
The Nuclear Regulation Authority’s green light now shifts the focus over to whether local governments will agree in the coming months to restart the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.
TEPCO is keen to get the plant back up and running. It has been financially reeling from the closure of its nuclear plants in Fukushima Prefecture following the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant in 2011 triggered by the earthquake and tsunami disaster.
The company plans to bring the No. 6 and No. 7 reactors back online at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear complex, which is among the world’s largest nuclear plants.
The two reactors each boast 1.35 gigawatts in output capacity. They are the newest of the seven reactors there, first put into service between 1996 and 1997.
TEPCO has not revealed specific plans yet on what to do with the older five reactors.
In 2017, the NRA cleared the No. 6 and No. 7 reactors under the tougher new reactor regulations established in 2013 in response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
It also closely scrutinized the operator’s ability to run the Niigata Prefecture plant safely, given its history as the entity responsible for the nation’s most serious nuclear accident.
After several rounds of meetings with top TEPCO managers, the NRA managed to hold the utility’s feet to the fire enough to make it pledge, in writing, to abide by a new seven-point safety code for the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.
The creation of the new code, which is legally binding, is meant to hold the company accountable for safety measures at the facility.
“As the top executive, the president of TEPCO will take responsibility for the safety of nuclear power,” one of the points reads. “TEPCO will not put the facility’s economic performance above its safety,” reads another.
The company promised to abide by the points set out in writing during the NRA’s examination of its safety regulations.
TEPCO also vowed to set up a system where the president is directly briefed on risks to the nuclear complex, including the likelihood of earthquakes more powerful than what the plant is designed to withstand. It must also draft safeguard measures to deal with those kinds of earthquakes and confirm whether precautionary steps are in place.
The utility additionally pledged to promptly release public records on the decision-making process concerning crucial matters related to nuclear safety, and to preserve the documents until the facility is decommissioned.
TEPCO plans to complete its work to reinforce the safety of the No. 7 reactor in December. It has not set a definite deadline for similar work for the No. 6 reactor.
To restart the Kashiwazki-Kariwa plant, TEPCO needs to obtain consent from local governments, including the Niigata prefectural government.
The prefectural government is studying the plant’s safety through a panel of experts, which is reviewing whether evacuation plans are adequate and the health impact on residents from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Niigata Governor Hideyo Hanazumi said he will not decide on the restart until the panel completes its review.
The nuclear complex suffered damage, including from fire at an electric transformer, when an earthquake it deemed able to withstand hit in 2007.
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13753076
September 24, 2020
Posted by dunrenard |
Japan | Kashiwazaki-Kariwa NPP, Restart, Tepco |
Leave a comment
Local residents attend a meeting held Sept. 10 by the town government of Suttsu, Hokkaido, to explain plans to host a final disposal site for nuclear waste.
September 22, 2020
Two local communities in Hokkaido are considering pitching themselves as candidates for the site for final disposal of highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.
Last month, the mayor of Suttsu in the northernmost main island said the municipal government is thinking to apply for the first stage of the three-stage process of selecting the site for the nation’s final repository for nuclear waste.
During this period, past records about natural disasters and geological conditions for the candidate area are examined. Town authorities are holding meetings with local residents to explain its intentions.
In Kamoenai, a village also in Hokkaido, the local chamber of commerce and industry submitted a petition to the local assembly to consider an application for the process. The issue was discussed at an assembly committee. However, the assembly decided to postpone making a decision after further discussion.
Both communities are located close to the Tomari nuclear power plant operated by Hokkaido Electric Power Co. and struggling with common rural problems such as a dwindling population and industrial and economic stagnation.
The law decrees that when the first stage of the selection process starts, the municipality that is picked will receive up to 2 billion yen ($19.1 million) in state subsidies for two years.
But the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO), which are in charge of the selection process, have promised it will not move to the second stage if the prefectural governor or local mayor voices an objection.
Hokkaido Governor Naomichi Suzuki has already expressed his opposition.
A huge amount of spent nuclear fuel has been produced by nuclear plants in Japan, and it needs to be stored and disposed of somewhere in this country.
This policy challenge requires a solid consensus among a broad range of people, including residents of cities who have been beneficiaries of electricity generated at nuclear plants.
The two Hokkaido municipalities’ moves to consider applying for the first stage of the selection process should be taken as an opportunity for national debate on the issue.
The first step should be to establish a system for local communities to discuss the issue thoroughly from a broad perspective.
It is crucial to prevent bitter, acrimonious divisions in local communities between supporters and opponents.
The central government and other parties involved need to provide whatever information is needed from a fair and neutral position to help create an environment for healthy, in-depth debate.
There is also a crucial need to fix the problems with the current plan to build a final repository for radioactive waste.
Under the plan, which is based on the assumption that a nuclear fuel recycling system will eventually be established, the repository will be used to store waste to be left after spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed to recover and recycle plutonium and uranium.
But there is no prospect for the establishment of such a recycling system which would allow for disposing only of the waste from reprocessing and recycling.
Eventually, Japan, like most other countries with nuclear power plants, will be forced to map out plans for “direct disposal,” or disposing of spent fuel from nuclear reactors in underground repositories.
The central government has not changed its policy of maintaining nuclear power generation as a major power source. If nuclear reactors keep operating, they will continue producing spent fuel.
The government will find it difficult to win local support for the planned repository unless it makes clear what kind of and how much radioactive material will be stored at the site.
Many local governments are facing a fiscal crunch partly because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hokkaido Governor Suzuki has taken a dim view of the financial incentive offered to encourage local governments to apply for the first stage of the selection process, criticizing the proposed subsidies as “a wad of cash used as a powerful carrot.”
It takes tens of thousands of years for the radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel to decline to sufficiently safe levels.
Trying to stem local opposition by dangling temporary subsidies could create a serious problem for the future in the communities.
It is vital to ensure that the repository plan will secure a long-term policy commitment to the development of the local communities and ensure benefits for the entire areas.
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13749856
September 24, 2020
Posted by dunrenard |
Japan | Hokkaido, Nuclear waste disposal |
Leave a comment
Assange faces “very high risk of suicide,” medical expert tells court, WSWS, By Thomas Scripps and Laura Tiernan, 23 September 2020
Medical evidence was produced in Julian Assange’s extradition hearing yesterday detailing the terrible harm done to the heroic journalist by a decade of state-orchestrated persecution.
The day was given over to the examination of Professor Michael Kopelman who testified to Assange’s mental health. Kopelman is a psychiatrist and Emeritus Professor of Neuropsychiatry at Kings College London. He has given expert evidence in multiple extradition cases on behalf of both the defence and the prosecution. In assessing Assange, he conducted seventeen visits in 2019 and additional visits in 2020, constructed a “full family history” and a “full personal psychiatric history,” and carried out “interviews with his family and lifelong friends.”
His findings constitute a clear bar to Assange’s extradition to the United States. Under Section 91 of the UK Extradition Act (2003), extradition is prohibited if “the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.”
Under Section 87, extradition is prohibited if it is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 3 of the ECHR states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Medical evidence speaking to these bars has played a critical role in previous US-UK extradition hearings, for example in the case of Lauri Love. The risk of notoriously poor conditions in US prisons exacerbating mental illness is an important factor.
Assange’s case meets these criteria. The details in today’s WSWS coverage are being reported consistent with the “sensitivity” called for by defence lawyer Edward Fitzgerald QC, on behalf of his client. Nonetheless they make overwhelmingly clear the “unjust and oppressive” treatment to which Assange has already been subjected.
Assange, Kopelman told the court, has experienced periods of serious mental illness in his earlier life. Since being confined to the Ecuadorian Embassy and then Belmarsh maximum security prison, these issues have resurfaced and worsened. Assange has suffered symptoms of severe and recurrent depression. Those symptoms have included “loss of sleep, loss of weight, a sense of pre-occupation and helplessness” and auditory hallucinations which Kopelman summarised as “derogatory and persecutory.”
They have also included “suicidal preoccupations.” Kopelman told the court, “There are… an abundance of known risk factors in Mr Assange’s case” and that Assange has “made various plans and undergone various preparations.” He gave his opinion that there was a “very high risk of suicide.”
These symptoms and risks, Kopelman explained, are exacerbated by an anxiety disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and by a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome. Kopelman cited a paper by world-leading autism expert Dr Simon Baron-Cohen which found that the lifetime experience of suicidal thoughts in those with Asperger’s “was more than nine times higher than in the general population in England.”
Explaining the impact of the US government’s persecution, Kopelman said, “The risk of suicide arises out of the clinical factors of depression and the other diagnoses, but it is the imminence of extradition and/or an actual extradition that will trigger the attempt, in my opinion.”
If Assange were to be incarcerated in the US and segregated from other prisoners, Kopelman gave his opinion that the WikiLeaks founder would “deteriorate substantially” and see an “exacerbation” of his “suicidal ideas.” This would “amount to psychological harm and severe psychological suffering.”
Kopelman’s evidence confirms the warnings made since November 2019 by Doctors for Assange, representing hundreds of medical professionals from around the world, that Assange is suffering “psychological torture” and “could die in prison.” It underlines in distressing detail UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer’s comment regarding Assange’s treatment that “psychological torture is not torture-lite. Psychological torture aims to wreck and destroy the person’s personality and identity… to make them break.”
Assange’s year-and-a-half long incarceration at Belmarsh has been designed to achieve this objective. It has profoundly undermined, in numerous ways, his legal right to prepare his defence against extradition. Kopelman reported yesterday that Assange has repeatedly complained that the medication taken for his mental health has caused him “difficulty in thinking, in memorising [and] in concentration.”
During the morning’s cross examination, Kopelman forcefully rebuffed prosecution lawyer James Lewis QC’s challenge to his credentials. He said solicitors had called him several times in recent years saying that Lewis himself was “keen to have your services” in an extradition case.
In the afternoon, cross-examination continued, with Lewis challenging the veracity of Kopelman’s diagnosis, and claiming that Assange’s appearance was “wholly inconsistent with someone who is severely or moderately-severely depressed and with psychotic symptoms.”
Kopelman replied, “Could we go back a step?” Having seen Assange between May 30 and December [2019], “I thought he was severely depressed, suicidal and was experiencing hallucinations.”………….. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/23/assa-s23.html
September 24, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
civil liberties, health, legal, UK |
Leave a comment
NB Media Co-op 22nd Sept 2020,Premier Blaine Higgs has endorsed so-called “small modular nuclear reactors” or SMRs. SMRs represent an untested technology but what we know on the basis of technical characteristics and historical precedent is that they will be expensive and any electricity they generate will not be economical. The nuclear industry is pushing small reactors because large reactors are simply not economical. Constructing nuclear plants is just too expensive—as Ontario’s government found out after its call in 2008 for bids to build two more reactors at the Darlington site.
Sierra Club Canada (accessed) 23rd Sept 2020, No plan that gets us to net zero in a reasonable time frame includes new nuclear reactors. Nuclear is far too slow and expensive to deal with the climate emergency. Just like fossil fuel energy, nuclear produces wastes that pose unacceptable health hazards and economic costs.
Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants have been piling up for over 70 years. Canada still has no long-term strategy to deal with either nuclear or fossil fuel wastes. Building Canada back better means major investments in conservation and renewable energy, providing hundreds of thousands of good green jobs. Global investment in renewable energy and newly-installed renewable capacity has far surpassed nuclear in recent years. Investors are smart: they put their money where it will yield good returns.
https://www.sierraclub.ca/en/new-nuclear-is-not-part-of-path-to-net-zero
September 24, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Canada, climate change, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, wastes |
Leave a comment
|
 What the presidential candidates should be asked about arms control and nonproliferation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Alexandra Bell, January 1, 2020 (updated 23 Sep 20)
Whether President Trump or one of his challengers is sworn in as president on January 20, 2021, he or she will have the complete and unchecked authority to order the use of the approximately 4,000 nuclear weapons in the active US stockpile. When running for the highest office in the land, each presidential candidate is asking the American public to trust him or her implicitly with this singular responsibility. Given that reality, it is actually quite strange that plans and policies for the management of the most destructive force ever created are rarely discussed on the campaign trail.
………..with the exception of the Nov. 20, 2020 Democratic debate, television network hosts have largely avoided foreign policy questions in multi-candidate forums. Political reporters inside the Beltway and in the field rarely ask candidates about nuclear policy issues, despite the multiple nuclear crises unfolding around us in real time. There does not seem to be any acknowledgement that nuclear issues are inextricably linked to so many of the other issues being discussed.
Relations with Russia, currently at a post-Cold War low, could slide from terrible to disastrous in the absence of verifiable, bilateral controls over the US and Russian nuclear arsenals. It is hard to envision a successful economic pivot to Asia that doesn’t involve a long-term solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis and a better strategic stability relationship between the United States and China.
Getting the military budget under control is impossible without taking a hard look at the nearly $1.7 trillion (at least) that the United States is planning to spend on modernizing US nuclear forces. There is no “peace in the Middle East” without constraints on weapons of mass destruction in the region. Long-term solutions to climate change are all for naught if we ignore the other existential threat to humanity: nuclear war. The list could go on, but the point is that we ignore nuclear issues at our own peril.
The next president will have to deal with many pressing questions on day one (or day 1,461), but few are as consequential as this one: Do we want to live in a world in which the number of nuclear weapons is going up or going down?………..
Despite the stated commitment to arms control and non-proliferation policies in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Reviewi, the Trump administration has mostly dismantled and dismissed standing nuclear agreements……..
No matter who sits behind the Resolute Desk on Jan. 20, 2021, he or she will have to scramble to triage the challenges left to them on the arms control and nonproliferation front.
The most pressing challenge will be the possible end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which is set to expire on Feb. 5, 2021.
………. While most Democratic candidates have affirmedv that they would extend the treaty as long as Russia remains in compliance, they should be asked to outline their plans for extension and how they would handle the broader strategic stability dialogue with Russia.
……… Plans to deal with the North Korean nuclear program are inextricably linked to other strategic security issues in the region.
………. The other major nonproliferation challenge for the candidates in 2020 will be the future of the Iranian nuclear program. The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran will affect the foreign policy landscape in 2021 and beyond.
………. With any of these matters, candidates should not be allowed to speak in bromides about the value of diplomacy. As uninspiring and tedious as the press may find it to focus on technical details, they should not buy into the idea that a quick-fix grand bargain is possible with Russia, Iran, or North Korea.
Presidential candidates are asking for the privilege and responsibility of running American foreign policy, so it is completely reasonable to expect them to describe the mechanics of their proposals, even as they acknowledge that those proposals may need to change over time
………. The future president will also need to manage the growing unease between nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states. In particular, the United States will need to assess how it has related and will relate to signatories of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, often known as the ban treaty, since the treaty will likely enter into force in the coming years.
……… Even with enhanced interest in and knowledge of nuclear policy, it is unlikely that reporters covering the 2020 presidential election will spend a significant amount of time on arms control and nonproliferation agreements. There are simply too many challenges facing the American public to expect hyper focus on any one policy area. That said, it would be extremely unfortunate to see the press ignore the subject of how we reduce nuclear risks—while gladly covering the president’s latest nickname for a rival or his challenger’s most memorable Trump put-down.
For the past half-century, American presidents and administrations of both political parties have painstakingly built an intricate collection of arms control and nonproliferation agreements. They have brought the overall number of nuclear weapons in the world from almost 70,000 to around 14,000. They have prevented the mass spread of nuclear weapons, containing nuclear weapons programs to just nine countries. They have kept fear, mistrust, and the impulsive tendencies of fallible humans in check. As we approach the 75th year of the nuclear age, these hard-won agreements are disappearing. Americans will enter the voting booth on November 3, 2020 to select a leader who will either reverse that unfortunate trend or doom us to repeat the folly of the Cold War arms race. Let’s hope those voters they have all the information they need to make the right choice. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2020-01/what-the-presidential-candidates-should-be-asked-about-arms-control-and-nonproliferation/?utm_source=Announcement&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Announcement09232020&utm_content=NuclearRisk_AskCandidates_01132020
|
|
September 24, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
election USA 2020, media |
Leave a comment
|
Why Russia Is Pushing Unneeded Nuclear Power Plants On Egypt, Oil Price, By Haley Zaremba – Sep 22, 2020, In recent years, Russia and China have been facing off to spread their nuclear power dominion to a new, huge, and vastly untapped market: Africa. The two nuclear power giants have been in competition to corner the market, with Russia aiming to grow its position in a sector that China has historically dominated. Earlier this summer, German media company DW News reported on a new Russian-funded and -controlled nuclear center being developed in Kigali: “The Center of Nuclear Science and Technologies, planned for completion by 2024, will include nuclear research labs as well as a small research reactor with up to 10 MW capacity.” And the Rwandan plant is just the beginning. “Ethiopia, Nigeria and Zambia have signed similar deals with Rosatom, while countries such as Ghana, Uganda, Sudan, and DRC have less expansive cooperation agreements.”Now, there is a new forum for nuclear takeover in Africa: Egypt. As reported by AllAfrica this week, “Egypt’s venture into nuclear power has been planned from the top-down, with environmental groups and rights organizations expressing reservations, energy analysts questioning the need for the country’s first nuclear plant, and many details of agreements with Russia remaining murky.” ……….. The main issue at play here is water. In Egypt, most areas receive less than eighty millimeters of precipitation per year. Water, therefore, is an especially precious commodity. The top complaint, therefore, is about the massive quantities of water needed to keep nuclear reactors cool to avoid meltdown. Any concerns about public health due to radiation and high costs of construction are secondary to the issue of water usage.
Another common complaint is that nuclear is not really needed in Egypt, where considerable deposits of natural gas have been discovered off the coast – enough to account for an energy surplus. This raises questions about the purpose of the project – is it really to create more and greener energy, or is it ultimately about power relations and geopolitical attachments between the infamously opaque Egyptian Nuclear and Radiological Regulatory Authority and the infamously power-hungry Russian government? https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Russia-Is-Pushing-Unneeded-Nuclear-Power-Plants-On-Egypt.html
|
|
September 24, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Egypt, politics international, Russia |
Leave a comment
Explosive evidence from Trump insider,Assange dragged from embassy “on the orders of the president”, WSWS, By Laura Tiernan and Thomas Scripps, 22 September 2020
Alt-right media personality Cassandra Fairbanks’ witness testimony was read out in court yesterday, providing evidence that Julian Assange’s April 2019 arrest at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London was politically motivated and directed by United States President Donald Trump.
Fairbanks testified that Arthur Schwartz, a wealthy Republican Party donor and key Trump ally, had told her that Assange was taken from the Ecuadorian Embassy “on orders from the president.” The conversation between Schwartz and Fairbanks occurred in September 2019 and was recorded by Fairbanks.
Schwartz, a frequent visitor to the White House and “informal adviser” or “fixer” to Donald Trump Jr., told Fairbanks the president’s orders were conveyed via US Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, who brokered a deal with the Ecuadorian government for Assange’s removal. Grenell was appointed acting director of national intelligence by Trump in February this year, holding the position until May.
Assange’s lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald QC, spelled out the significance of Fairbanks’ disclosures, telling Judge Vanessa Baraitser they were, “evidence of the declared intentions of those at the top who planned the prosecution and the eviction from the embassy.”
Fairbanks, who writes for the pro-Trump Gateway Pundit, is a prominent Assange supporter who visited the WikiLeaks founder at the Embassy on two key occasions. Her evidence was read into proceedings yesterday afternoon unopposed, with Fitzgerald explaining, “My learned friend [James Lewis QC for the prosecution] reserves the right to say ‘because she’s a supporter of Julian Assange you must take that into account in weighing her evidence.’ But we say [her evidence] is true.”
Given her close connections to leading figures in the Trump administration’s fascistic entourage, Fairbanks is uniquely positioned to expose key aspects of the politically motivated vendetta against the WikiLeaks founder. Throughout the extradition hearing, lawyers for the US government have repeatedly claimed the charges against Assange under the Espionage Act are motivated by “criminal justice concerns” and are “not political.”
Fairbanks’ evidence shreds the official narrative of the Department of Justice (DoJ) that Assange was arrested on April 11, 2019 in relation to “hacking.” In a phone call with Schwartz on October 30, 2018, he made clear that Assange would be arrested as political payback for his role in “the Manning case,” i.e., the disclosure by US Army whistle-blower Chelsea Manning of US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq……………
Speaking outside the court, Assange’s father, John Shipton, said, “Today we had the prosecution trying to prove that water runs uphill and up is down. … The defence replied and conclusively demonstrated that it was David Leigh [who caused the unredacted cables to be released]. We can only conclude from the amount of time that the prosecution spent defending David Leigh that David Leigh is a state asset.”
At the end of the hearing’s morning session, an exchange between District Judge Vanessa Baraitser and the legal teams pointed to further restrictions being imposed on the defence’s ability to present its case.
Seizing on the delays caused by a potential COVID-19 outbreak in the first week of the hearing, Baraitser insisted that the defence prepare a timetable that allowed the hearing to “finish within two weeks.” When the defence replied that this would leave no time for closing submissions, she reacted enthusiastically to the suggestion of prosecution lawyer James Lewis QC that these could be submitted in written form and summarised in just half a day each for the prosecution and the defence. A final decision is forthcoming.
The hearing continues today……… https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/22/assa-s22.html
September 24, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Legal, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK |
1 Comment
