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.”
Is the £20 billion Sizewell C project right for the region and country?
East Anglia’s nuclear option – is the £20 billion Sizewell C project right for the region and country? ANGLIA
The electricity company EDF plans to build a new nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast, but what will that mean for our region?
How will it impact local people and the environment? And what role does nuclear power play in the East as the country moves towards zero carbon emissions by 2050?
-
- EDF proposes building a twin nuclear reactor at a cost of £20 billion pounds. .
- ………………..It’s expected to operate for 60 years.
- The whole project will take around 10-12 years to build with a construction site covering 620 acres.
-
also a fear that it will come at a cost to existing businesses – especially the tourism industry.
One of those concerned is local brewery Adnams.
Andy Wood from Adnams said: “The tourism industry employs nearly 100,000 people, the value of tourism in Norfolk and Suffolk is about £5.4 billion, and all of these things are going to be impacted by a large construction infrastructure project.”
The impact on wildlife is also raising concerns.
At RSPB Minsmere – an internationally important wildlife reserve – there are serious concerns about how noise and pollution would irrevocably damage rare wildlife habitats and species.
Adam Rowlands, from RSPB Suffolk, said: “We’re concerned about the direct impact, so the noise, the visual disturbance, in essence that could change the patterns of the birds and the other species that use the area.”
…… People have until September 30 to give their views before a decision is made.
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/
Greenland’s meltdown taking flight
This century is shaping up to be designated an inflection point of radical change with solid evidence of trouble down the line found most recently in a rapid meltdown phase of the Greenland Ice Sheet, a target way too big to miss. It’s melting fast and faster beyond the scope of climate models, which, for reasons not fully explained, cannot keep up with the cascading ice mass.Starting with this decade, Greenland’s meltdown took flight. This is indisputable as its acceleration has a familiar ring found amongst all major ecosystems, planet-wide. In short, climate change acceleration is universal. It’s a horrifyingly dangerous threat to the integrity of life-sourcing ecosystems, like the Great Barrier Reef, three massive unprecedented bleaching events in only five years; all the result of rising ocean temperatures driven by global heat, up to 90% mortality in some locations. (Source: Australian Academy of Sciences).
Greenland represents 23 feet of sea level encased in ice up to two miles thick and will likely require hundreds or thousands of years to completely melt-down, but for current purposes that doesn’t count! What counts are the upcoming years on the way to 23 feet. And, that’s a dicey proposition when consideration is given to how far off scientists’ models have been. It’ best to brace for the worst.
After all, there is no chance that emissions will be curbed. In today’s real world, it is simply not on the docket. Greenhouse gases have been accelerating ever since China decided to mix a cocktail of High-end Capitalism and the Communist Party of China; thereafter, building a brand spanking new coal-burning power plant every week like clockwork to meet capitalistic demands for cheaper products for America and the world, starting in the late 1970s.
Not only China but also Japan plans to build 20 new coal-powered plants and India is planning numerous new coal-powered plants. And, that’s only half of today’s fossil-fuel renaissance, looking ahead thru this decade, oil barons, like Saudi Arabia and the U.S., intend to increase oil and gas production by up to 130% by 2030, meaning substantially higher CO2 emissions leading to hotter temperatures leading to higher sea levels leading to increased flooding of coastal cities.
Where’s the IPCC when it’s really needed or is it hopelessly feckless?
In truth, the underlying Greenland message is not subtle; it’s simply build seawalls, thus protecting hundreds of millions of people, businesses, and urban environments from massive flooding, and soil contamination and aquifer spoilage via salt water. Coastal cities across the world need to start constructing enormous seawalls, in some cases extending for miles beyond the city’s limits, possibly as far as an entire coastline, as rising waters find voids in structures.
China feels India’s nuclear weapons programme driven by prestige: US report
China feels India’s nuclear weapons programme driven by prestige: US reportThe Carnegie report stressed China’s views on the issue are largely unknown
The Chinese state-run media continues to play up deployment of new artillery and other weapon systems near the border with India. However, despite the tension, references to nuclear weapons have been subdued in both nations.
A US think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, on August 19 published a report on the Chinese perspective on nuclear weapons in the context of ties with India.
The Carnegies report noted while India’s perspectives on nuclear weapons are “relatively well documented,” China’s views on the issue are largely unknown.
The Carnegie report is based on interviews with “dozen Chinese academics, researchers, and military officers who work either on South Asia or on nuclear policy” and review of Chinese literature published in the last decade……..
Nukes for prestige?
On the issue of India’s nuclear weapons, the Chinese experts interviewed in the Carnegie report felt the systems are “for general deterrence and not for actual employment”……….
The experts interviewed in the Carnegie study felt a border conflict between India and China was unlikely to escalate into a nuclear exchange. Both India and China have declared ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons.
………. The US factor
A point of concern expressed by the Chinese analysts was the possibility of India and the US strengthening strategic ties.
“While Chinese analysts largely dismiss India’s homegrown development of new military capabilities, they express concern about the prospect of US-India collaboration on defence projects. Chinese experts are particularly wary of US-India missile defence cooperation and the possibility that it could create a networked system. If such a system was to emerge, they would see India as a de facto security ally of the United States,” the Carnegie report noted. https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2020/08/19/china-feels-indias-nuclear-weapons-programme-driven-by-prestige-us-report.html
Hitachi waiting for tax-payer funding, to start nuclear projects in UK
Horizon waiting for chance to restart new-build projects, WNN 19 August 2020 Horizon Nuclear Power has been holding “detailed conversations” with the UK government in recent weeks to persuade ministers that the proposed Wylfa Newydd plant on Anglesey could be quickly re-mobilised if they can produce a new financing model for large nuclear power plants in Britain, according to an article in the Financial Times on 16 August. A decision on Wylfa’s planning application is expected by the end of next month.Horizon announced the suspension of its new-build projects in January 2019. The UK subsidiary of Japan’s Hitachi said it had made substantial progress with its plans to provide at least 5.4 GWe of new capacity across two sites – Wylfa Newydd, in north Wales, and Oldbury-on-Severn, in southwest England – by deploying Hitachi-GE UK advanced boiling reactors.
The UK government is currently considering the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model for new nuclear projects. This would allow investors to start making a pre-determined return as they invested, but any new policy would require primary legislation and the whole process of developing and then enacting a new policy would likely take a minimum of 18 months……. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Horizon-waiting-for-chance-to-restart-new-build-pr
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 |
|
Artificial Intelligence brings a new worry into nuclear weaponry
Artificial intelligence and nuclear weapons: Bringer of hope or harbinger of doom? https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/bringer-of-hope-or-harbinger-of-doom-artificial-intelligence-and-nuclear-weapons/ Jennifer Spindel |Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of New Hampshire, 17 Aug, 20
In 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin said whichever country leads in the development of artificial intelligence will be “the ruler of the world.” Artificial intelligence is not unlike electricity: it is a general-purpose enabling technology with multiple applications. Russia hopes to develop an artificial intelligence capable of operations that approximate human brain function. China is working to become the world leader in AI by 2030, and the United States declared in 2019 that it would maintain its world leadership on artificial intelligence. Will the world’s major powers seek to use AI with their nuclear weapons and command and control systems? Pairing nuclear weapons – arguably the previous ruler of the world – with this new technology could give states an even greater edge over potential competitors. But the marriage between nuclear weapons and artificial intelligence carries significant risks, risks that currently outweigh potential benefits. At best, using AI with nuclear weapons systems could increase time efficiencies. At worst, it could undermine the foundations of nuclear deterrence by changing leaders’ incentives to use nuclear weapons.
Opportunities in data analysis and time efficiencies
Artificial intelligence could be a boon for drudgery type tasks such as data analysis. AI could monitor and interpret geospatial or sensor data, and flag changes or anomalies for human review. Applied to the nuclear realm, this use of AI could be used to track reactors, inventories, and nuclear materials movement, among other things. Human experts would thus be free to spend more of their time investigating change, rather than looking at data of the status quo.
Incorporating artificial intelligence into early warning systems could create time efficiencies in nuclear crises. Similar to the boon for data analysis, AI could improve the speed and quality of information processing, giving decision-makers more time to react. Time is the commodity in a nuclear crisis, since nuclear-armed missiles can often reach their target in as little as eight minutes. Widening the window of decision could be key in deescalating a nuclear crisis.
Challenges posed by risks, accidents, and nuclear deterrence
Incorporating artificial intelligence into nuclear systems presents a number of risks. AI systems need data, and lots of it, to learn and to update their world model. Google’s AI brain simulator required 10 million images to teach itself to recognize cats. Data on scenarios involving nuclear weapons are, thankfully, not as bountiful as internet cat videos. However, much of the empirical record on nuclear weapons would teach an AI the wrong lesson. Consider the number of almost-launches and near-accidents that occurred during the Cold War; both U.S. and Soviet early warning systems mistakenly reported nuclear launches. Although simulated data could be used to train an AI, the stakes of getting it wrong in the nuclear realm are much higher than in other domains. It’s also hard to teach an AI to feel the doubts and suspicions that human operators relied on to detect false alarms and to change their minds.
Accidents are also amplified in the nuclear realm. There are already examples of accidents involving automated conventional weapons systems: in March 2003, U.S. Patriot missile batteries shot down a British fighter plane and a U.S. fighter jet while operating in “automated mode,” killing the crews of both planes. Accidents are likely to increase as AI systems become more complex and harder for humans to understand or explain. Accidents like these, which carry high costs, decrease overall trust in automated and AI systems, and will increase fears about what will happen if nuclear weapons systems being to rely on AI.
Beyond accidents and risks, using AI in nuclear weapons systems poses challenges to the foundations of nuclear deterrence. Data collection and analysis conducted by AI systems could enable precision strikes to destroy key command, control, and communication assets for nuclear forces. This would be a significant shift from Cold War nuclear strategy, which avoided this type of counterforce targeting. If states’ can target each other’s nuclear weapons and command infrastructure, then second-strike capabilities will be at risk, ultimately jeopardizing mutually assured destruction. For example, AI could identify a nuclear submarine on patrol in the ocean, or could interfere with nuclear command and control, thus jeopardizing one, or more, legs of the nuclear triad. This creates pressure for leaders to use their nuclear weapons now, rather than risk losing them (or control over them) in the future.
Even if states somehow agree not to use AI for counterforce purposes, the possibility that it could one day be used that way is destabilizing. States need a way to credibly signal how they will – and won’t – use artificial intelligence in their nuclear systems.
The future of AI and nuclear stability
The opportunities and risks posed by the development of artificial intelligence is less about the technology and more about how we decide to make use of it. As the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute noted, “geopolitical tensions, lack of communication and inadequate signalling of intentions” all might matter more than AI technology during a crisis or conflict. Steps to manage and understand the risks and benefits posed by artificial intelligence should include confidence-building measures (CBMs) and stakeholder dialogue.
CBMs are crucial because they reduce mistrust and misunderstanding, and can help actors signal both their resolve and their restraint. As with conventional weapons, transparency about when and how a state plans to use artificial intelligence systems is one type of CBM. Lines of communication, which are particularly useful in crisis environments, are another type that should be explored.
Continued dialogue with stakeholders including governments, corporations, and civil society will be key to developing and spreading norms about the uses of artificial intelligence. Existing workshops and dialogues about the militarization of artificial intelligence, and artificial intelligence and international security show that such dialogues are possible and productive. The international community can consider building on existing cooperative efforts concerning cyberspace, such as the U.N.’s work on norms and behaviour in cyberspace, the Cybersecurity Tech Accords, and Microsoft, Hewlett, and Mastercard’s CyberPeace Institute. This dialogue will help us understand the scope of potential change and should give us incentives to move slowly and to push for greater transparency to reduce misperception and misunderstanding.
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.
A real setback to UK”s Bradwell nuclear project: Colchester Council voted unanimously to reject the proposal
Blow to Bradwell B nuclear power plant as council unanimously reject plans, Maldon Standard
A motion, put forward by council leader Mark Cory, said: “This council objects to new nuclear at Bradwell due to the local environmental impacts and prefers a focus on renewable energy alternatives.”
During the debate, councillors called for a “united front” approach amongst councillors and north Essex MPs.
he Bradwell B project is a joint operation between CGN and EDF Energy. Its backers claim it will create 900 permanent jobs as well as 9,000 jobs during construction.
If permitted, it would be built alongside the decommissioned Bradwell power station, however, the proposals have generated a wave of opposition.
Campaign group Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) welcomed Colchester Council’s decision after submitting a statement to the council, outlining four reasons for rejecting the proposal.
Chairman Prof Andy Blowers said: “It is unacceptable for such a dangerous power station and long-term highly radioactive waste stores to be located so close to large populations such as Mersea and Colchester which would be completely unprotected in the event of a major release of radioactivity.
“And the site is unsuitable since its precious environment and heritage is irreplaceable and would be severely compromised if not altogether destroyed.”
Peter Banks, of West Mersea Town Council and co-ordinator of BANNG, added: “With my practical, scientific mind, I endorse this policy. With my passionate, environmentally pumping heart, I endorse this policy.
“BANNG is delighted that all councillors, regardless of political persuasion, have endorsed this policy.”….https://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/18652490.blow-bradwell-b-nuclear-power-plant-council-unanimously-reject-plans/
U.S. Senator Harris and Rep Ocasio-Cortez introduce Bill on climate harm
Reuters 6th Aug 2020, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on
Thursday introduced legislation to beef up federal accountability for
pollution in minority communities disproportionately harmed by climate
change. Harris, a leading contender to be Democratic presidential candidate
Joe Biden’s running mate, was running in the Democratic primary last year
when she first floated the Climate Equity Act with Ocasio-Cortez.
Danger in Houthi Smuggling of Thorium to Iran
|
Yemen Official Warns of Blast Worse than Beirut’s over Houthi Smuggling of Thorium to Iran, Asharq Al-Awsat, Sunday, 16 August, 2020 Jeddah – Asma al-Ghabri
The Yemen Coalition of Independent Women held a virtual seminar titled “Iranian intervention: A History of Disorder in The Arab Countries,” which tackled a variety of issues, including the Iran-backed Houthi militias’ smuggling of Thorium from Yemen to Iran. Hodeidah Undersecretary Walid al-Qudaimi warned of the impending danger facing Yemen over the ongoing smuggling of the material. Houthis are actively enriching Thorium extracted from Yemeni mountains and sending it to Iran for arms manufacture. Qudaimi said that a blast worse than the one that took place at Beirut port on August 4, due to the explosion of highly-flammable ammonium nitrate, was in store for Yemen if the smuggling does not stop…… “When we talk about Yemen, the catastrophe is very big and worse than we might expect,” he said, adding that Houthis control the ports of Hodeidah and use them to smuggle weapons and explosive materials of all kinds……. https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/2450796/yemen-official-warns-blast-worse-beirut%E2%80%99s-over-houthi-smuggling-thorium-iran |
|
1 This Month
Tell Congress: Prevent Nuclear Catastrophe in Iran
Tell Congress: Prevent Nuclear Catastrophe in Iran
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (138)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- 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)
-
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
