Ukrainian energy minister censured over response to power grid attacks
Ahead of Ukraine’s third and most testing winter of the war, criticism
is mounting over the government’s slow response to Russia’s attacks on
the energy grid and its priorities when rebuilding.
Energy minister German
Galushchenko has come under fire for delaying by two years efforts to
decentralise power generation so it is less vulnerable to Russian attacks.
The energy ministry started taking steps towards building smaller power
stations only this summer, with the government announcing cheap loans to
attract investors in these projects. But critics say those efforts should
have started in 2022 soon after Russia’s full-scale invasion when Moscow
homed in on Ukraine’s energy grid and that hundreds of smaller
gas-powered stations or renewable energy projects could have been built in
this period.
“The energy ministry is not interested in decentralisation.
Rather, they are interested in centralisation, they want as much of energy
sector, particularly generation, under their state companies,” said an
energy official.
Galushchenko, say experts and officials, has instead
lobbied for the construction of large and costly nuclear reactors, which
take between seven to 10 years to build. Before becoming minister in 2021,
Galushchenko was vice-president of the state nuclear company, Energoatom.
FT 30th Sept 2024. https://www.ft.com/content/69b56215-c373-45a6-b52e-c1ab403565d5
“Drop Out of Nuclear Dump Plan” Message to Nuclear Waste Services “Drop In”
By mariannewildart, https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2024/09/30/drop-out-of-nuclear-dump-plan-message-to-nuclear-waste-services-drop-in/—
“Drop Out of Nuclear Dump Plan” was the message from campaigners at the Nuclear Waste Services “Drop In” at the Beacon Portal, Whitehaven on Saturday 28th September.
The Plan
Should Nuclear Waste Services plan in Cumbria be taken to conclusion a giant mine as deep as Scafell is high at 1000m and larger than the City of Westminster at 25km square would be excavated under the Irish Sea in order to bury the UK’s high level nuclear wastes in the hope that it would stay buried. The above ground area of a Geological Disposal Faciity (GDF) at 1km square, would be nearly as big as Hyde Park in London and would sit alongside the National Park boundary on the Lake DIstrict coast. Lakes Against Nuclear Dump (LAND) a Radiation Free Lakeland campaign chatted with members of the public on Saturday outside Nuclear Waste Services event. LAND were thanked by members of the public for showing resistance to the plan for a deep nuclear dump or Geologicial Disposal Facility under the Lake District’s coast.
Irish Sea Geology a Giant Heat Sink?
Lakes Against Nuclear Dump LAND campaigner Marianne Birkby said “no other industry would have the sheer brass neck to plan to use the geology of the supposedly protected Irish Sea as a gigantic heat sink for their ever increasing wastes. No other industry produces heat generating nuclear wastes . The reason the infamous leaks at the once state of the art Magnox silos at Sellafield are impossible to find and stop is precisely because the silos are buried 6 metres underground.” Campaigners asked how long it would take the heat from buried high level nuclear wastes to reach the Irish Sea bed. Nuclear Waste Services staff replied that they would “find out” It is clear that alongside the radiological impacts the industry cannot point to any research on the short or long term impacts of thermal heating of the deep geology and ocean specifically of the Irish Sea from a Geological Disposal Facility.
Earthquakes and Plutonium
Campaigners asked about the earthquake risks of deep mining so close to the plutonium stockpiles at Sellafield and were told that “the government is working on a plan for the plutonium so it won’t be a problem at the time mining begins”. LAND Campaigners say that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s “preferred” option is to use plutonium as MOX fuel . MOX (mixed oxide) fuel contains a tiny amount of plutonium blended with uranium.
The net result is the production of ever more plutonium for “reuse as fuel in reactors followed by disposal (of unusable plutonium) in a GDF.” Much more land would be required for MOX fabrication facilities. The NDA say “The policy position recognises that not all the inventory could be reused; therefore, any strategy will also require the development of approaches to immobilise plutonium for storage pending disposal.” Nuclear Waste Services assurance to the public at the “drop in” that the plutonium problem “will not exist when mining begins” is clearly at odds with reality. LAND say “burning MOX fuel would increase the nuclear sprawl at Sellafield and would increase, not decrease the plutonium stockpiles. Instead of reducing the “exceptional circumstances” of a severe accident at Sellafield the nuclear industry and government seem hell bent on increasing the likelihood of severe accident with proposing earthquake inducing mining to bury high level nuclear wastes while at the same time proposing increasing the plutonium mess at Sellafield.”
Orange Harbour a Visual Reminder of Fragile Area
The continuing acid mine pollution pouring into Whitehaven Harbour for two years with no end in sight is a terrible visual reminder that deep mining in this fragile area of West Cumbria should be banned and that is say campaigners without the area containing the world’s largest stockpiles of plutonium.
Most Dangerous Experiment Since Splitting the Atom
Lakes Against Nuclear Dump say The potential disastrous impacts of the plan could be on planetary scale but a future “test of public support” is limited to those who are now benefitting from £millions for every year the manufactured “Community Partnership” with Nuclear Waste Services continues along the “Journey to GDF” aka Nuclear Dump Under the Lake District Coast
References:…………………………………………….
Sullivan: US Will Ensure Iran Faces ‘Severe Consequences’ for Attacking Israel
October 2, 2024 , By Dave DeCamp / Antiwar.com
US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said on Tuesday that the US would work with Israel to ensure Iran faces “severe consequences” for launching a missile attack on Israel, which came in response to recent Israeli escalations.
“There will be severe consequences for this attack, and we will work with Israel to make that the case,” Sullivan told reporters at the White House.
President Biden said the US was in “active discussions” with Israel on what the response would be. “The United States is fully, fully, fully supportive of Israel,” he said.
Media reports say Iran fired at least 180 missiles at Israel. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said the attack was launched in retaliation for the Israeli assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, the killing of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, and Abbas Nilforoushan, an IRGC commander who was killed alongside Nasrallah.
The IRCG has claimed that 90% of the missiles hit their targets, while Israel claimed most were intercepted. Videos have surfaced that show Iranian missiles making an impact on Israeli military sites. So far, there’s been no word on Israeli deaths, but a Palestinian in the Israeli-occupied West Bank was killed when shrapnel from an intercepted missile fell on Jericho.
The US said that it helped Israel intercept some of the Iranian missiles and portrayed the defense as a success. Sullivan said the Iranian attack “appears to have been defeated and ineffective.”
…………………………………………Iran has signaled that it’s done attacking Israel but warned there would be a “crushing response” if Israel hits back. Israeli officials have made clear that they plan to respond.
“There will be consequences,” said Israeli military spokesman Daniel Hagari. “Our defensive and offensive capabilities are at the highest levels of readiness. Our operational plans are ready. We will respond wherever, whenever, and however we choose, in accordance with the directive of the government of Israel.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran will “pay” for the attack. “This evening, Iran made a big mistake — and it will pay for it,” he said at a security cabinet meeting. “The regime in Tehran does not understand our determination to defend ourselves and to exact a price from our enemies.” https://scheerpost.com/2024/10/02/sullivan-us-will-ensure-iran-faces-severe-consequences-for-attacking-israel/
Russia revisits nuclear doctrine to allow attacks on non-nuclear states in response to Western weapons in Ukraine.
By Heloise Vyas, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-26/russia-revises-nuclear-weapons-laws-warning-united-states/104398414
In short:
Vladimir Putin has unveiled changes to conditions surrounding Russia’s use of nuclear weapons which he says will be put into effect if there was “reliable information” about a large-scale enemy attack.
The updated doctrine includes a widening of the threats under which Russia would consider a nuclear strike, including retaliating against conventional weapons.
What’s next?
Russia’s warning to the West comes amid deliberations on Ukraine’s use of Western long-range missiles. The US has not directly responded to the threat.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has broadened the remit of his nuclear doctrine to fend off Western-supported attacks in the Ukraine war, threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-armed nations even if not attacked by them.
During a meeting with Russia’s Security Council on Wednesday, local time, he outlined three key changes to the Kremlin’s official nuclear doctrine — signed in 2020 — as a response to ongoing deliberations in the United States and Britain about permitting Ukraine to fire long-range missiles into Russian territory.
Mr Putin said under the lowered threshold, Russia could deploy nuclear bombs even if it was struck with conventional weapons, and that Moscow would consider any assault on it supported by a nuclear power to be a “joint attack”.
Russia reserved the right to also use nuclear weapons if it or ally Belarus were the subject of aggression, including by conventional weapons, he added.
The 71-year-old, who is the primary decision-maker on Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal, said he wanted to underscore one key change in particular.
“It is proposed that aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, be considered as their joint attack on the Russian Federation,” Mr Putin said in his opening remarks to the council.
He said the new rules would be effectuated if Russia detected a large-scale launch of enemy missiles, aircraft or drones was coming its way: “The conditions for Russia’s transition to the use of nuclear weapons are also clearly fixed.”
Mr Putin said the clarifications were carefully calibrated and commensurate with the modern military threats facing Russia — confirmation that the nuclear doctrine was changing.
The implications
Russia’s warning to the West comes amid Ukrainian pleas to fire long-range weapons (many already in its possession) into Russia, including British Storm Shadows and American ATACMS ballistic missiles.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy argues these will help hit vital military depots with precision, but the US has trodden carefully, fearing such a move would escalate the war and pit NATO in direct conflict with Russia.
Russia has previously provoked war with NATO, accusing the US and European nations of de facto participation in the conflict, but has not come as far as spelling out changes to the use of its nuclear arsenal. Earlier this month it said it was considering updating the doctrine.
With Ukraine losing key towns to gradually advancing Russian forces in the country’s east, the war is entering what Russian officials say is the most dangerous phase to date.
Western aid for Kyiv has remained steady, with the US pledging a further $375 million in aid on Thursday, although it is unclear what bearing Mr Putin’s nuclear threat will have on considerations of long-range weapon restrictions.
Many view Russia brandishing its nuclear sabre as little more than a bluff, but some analysts say it is “because of and not in spite of” the fact that Moscow has repeatedly held its nuclear arsenals over Western heads that leaders should take these threats seriously.
Russia’s current published nuclear doctrine, set out in a 2020 decree by Mr Putin, says it may use nuclear weapons in case of a nuclear attack by an enemy or a conventional attack that threatens the existence of the state.
The innovations outlined include a widening of the threats under which Russia would consider a nuclear strike, the inclusion of ally Belarus under the nuclear umbrella, and the idea that a rival nuclear power supporting a conventional strike on Russia would also be considered to be attacking it.
Nuclear-armed states that could be drawn into this include France, the United Kingdom, Israel and most crucially the US, which along with Russia controls 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear warheads.
China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea possess the remainder, but neither has actively been involved in the Ukraine war. A further 32 states also either host nuclear weapons or endorse their use.
Ukraine is neither a nuclear state, nor a part of NATO, but is backed by the alliance.
How has Russia’s threat been received?
Mr Zelenskyy has urged the West to disregard Russia’s so-called “red lines”, and some Western allies have also urged the US to do just that.
“Russia no longer has any instruments to intimidate the world apart from nuclear blackmail,” Andrey Yermak, Mr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, said in response to the Russian president’s Wednesday remarks.
“These instruments will not work.”
Mr Putin, who casts the West as a decadent aggressor, and US President Joe Biden, who casts Russia as a corrupt autocracy and Mr Putin as a killer, have both warned that a direct Russia-NATO confrontation could escalate into World War III. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has also warned of the risk of nuclear war.
In his comments to Russia’s Security Council, a type of modern-day politburo of Mr Putin’s most powerful officials including influential hawks, he said work on amendments to changing the doctrine had been going on for the past year.
“The nuclear triad remains the most important guarantee of ensuring the security of our state and citizens, an instrument for maintaining strategic parity and balance of power in the world,” he said.
Russia, he said, would consider using nuclear weapons “upon receiving reliable information about the massive launch of aerospace attack vehicles and their crossing of our state border, meaning strategic or tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic and other aircraft”.
No explicit laws restraining nuclear weapons use
Casualties from a nuclear war between Russia and the US could reach tens of millions, with even a single bomb having the capacity to wipe out about 580,000 people, according to estimates from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
US-Russian arms control agreements also classify “tactical” nuclear weapons, which are presented as having smaller yield, and are intended for battlefield use as opposed to strategic weapons fired across vast distances.
But even these smaller warheads are hugely destructive and comparable in strength with the two atomic bombs dropped by the US in Japan during World War Two which killed about 210,000 people.
In 2022, Washington was so concerned about the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia that it warned Mr Putin about the consequences of using them, according to Central Intelligence Agency director Bill Burns.
The two-and-a-half-year Ukraine war has triggered the gravest confrontation between Russia and the West since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis — considered to be the closest the two Cold War superpowers came to intentional nuclear war.
Internationally, little power exists to prevent nuclear powers invoking the use of their arsenals.
The UN’s Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons does formally push for nuclear disarmament and outlaws the development, testing, production, acquisition, possession and stockpiling of nuclear weapons but neither Russia nor the US is a part of it.
The Netherlands is also the only NATO member participating in the treaty.
DOE Plutonium Pit Plan Found To Violate Environmental Law
By Daniel Wilson (September 30, 2024,) — A South Carolina federal judge on Monday backed antinuclear groups’ challenge to a U. S. Department of Energy plan to boost production of plutonium cores used in nuclear weapons, saying the DOE hadn’t properly considered the potential environmental impact of the plan. . . …….. (Subscribers only) more https://www.law360.com/articles/1884130/doe-plutonium-pit-plan-found-to-violate-environmental-law
US government provides $1.52 billion loan to resurrect Michigan nuclear plant
US closes $1.52 billion loan to resurrect Michigan nuclear plant, By Timothy Gardner October 1, 2024
WASHINGTON, Sept 30 (Reuters) – The U.S. on Monday said it closed a $1.52 billion loan to resurrect Holtec’s Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan, and a senior Biden administration official said it could take two years to reopen the plant, which is longer than the company predicted.
President Joe Biden’s administration has called for a tripling of U.S. nuclear power capacity as U.S. power demand surges and worries about climate change mount.
The push could include the potential reopening of some commercial reactors that have been shut for decommissioning, including one at Three Mile Island, site of the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history. Restarting shut nuclear plants is a complicated and expensive process never before accomplished in the country.
“Palisades is a climate comeback story,” Ali Zaidi, the White House climate adviser, told reporters in a call, adding that nuclear power supports high-paying union jobs
The $1.52 billion in financing from the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, was accompanied by funding for nonprofit electric cooperatives to purchase power from Palisades. Deputy U.S. Energy Secretary Xochitl Torres Small announced more than $1.3 billion in public funding to power cooperatives Wolverine and Hoosier Energy.
Nuclear reactors generate virtually emissions-free power, which is valued as electricity demand soars for the first time in decades on growth in artificial intelligence, electric vehicles and cryptocurrencies. Nuclear critics, however, point out that the U.S. has not agreed on a permanent place to bury radioactive nuclear waste.
Palisades still needs licensing from regulators and the senior U.S. official said that means it could take “a couple of years to turn back on”. Holtec has estimated a comeback in the fourth quarter next year…………….
O’Brien has said Holtec does not expect delays or additional costs. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-closes-152-billion-loan-resurrect-michigan-nuclear-plant-2024-09-30/
Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine Change Is More Cautious Than It May Appear
What’s new in the proposed update is the suggestion that a non-nuclear state could be the primary aggressor without being formally allied with a nuclear-armed state. ……………….
This shift in the doctrine seems to be crafted with the current geopolitical situation in mind, particularly Russia’s framing of the Ukraine conflict and its relationship with the United States and its allies.….
Long-Range Strikes May Not Be a Silver Bullet…………
By Maxim Trudolyubov on September 27, 2024, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/russias-nuclear-doctrine-change-more-cautious-it-may-appear
In a recent discussion on Russia’s nuclear doctrine, President Vladimir Putin announced an expansion of the categories of states and military alliances that would fall under Russia’s nuclear deterrence policy. “Aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, with the participation or support of a nuclear state, will be treated as a joint attack on the Russian Federation,” Putin stated during the public segment of a recent meeting of Russia’s Security Council.
While the official document, titled “Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence,” has yet to be updated, experts suggest that the timing of this announcement serves as a clear warning to Ukraine. Currently, Ukraine is seeking approval from the United States to use Western long-range missiles against targets deeper within Russian territory.
Putin’s wording is explicit: the “non-nuclear state” in question is Ukraine, while the “nuclear state” providing support or participating in an attack is primarily the United States, though this could also extend to the United Kingdom and France.
U.S. officials believe such strikes could lead to a significant escalation, potentially drawing NATO into direct confrontation with Russia. Moscow has consistently warned Western countries that any attacks on its territory would be seen as acts of war. This cautious stance by the United States has led to public frustration among some American allies in Europe.
Both France and Britain have indicated a willingness to approve such strikes for Ukraine, but they are waiting for Washington’s decision as a benchmark. The UK and France produce and supply their own missiles, but they use guiding technology developed by the United States. “It would be really good to stop the delays. And I think that the restrictions on the use of weapons should be lifted,” said Mette Frederiksen, prime minister of Denmark, in an interview with Bloomberg.
What the New Language Actually Means
Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher on weapons of mass destruction at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, notes that Russia’s current nuclear doctrine does not clearly distinguish between aggression from nuclear-armed and non-nuclear states. Instead, any aggression that “threatens the existence of the state” could potentially provoke a nuclear response.
At first glance, the proposed change does not sound like a tectonic shift. Since 1995, Russia has pledged not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-armed states unless they act “in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon state.” The Russian authorities at the time operated on an assumption that any such situation would involve a nuclear-armed state as the primary aggressor, with non-nuclear states in a supporting role.
What’s new in the proposed update is the suggestion that a non-nuclear state could be the primary aggressor without being formally allied with a nuclear-armed state. The language implies that a non-nuclear state’s aggression could be seen as part of a broader campaign involving a nuclear-armed state, thereby justifying a nuclear response. This shift in the doctrine seems to be crafted with the current geopolitical situation in mind, particularly Russia’s framing of the Ukraine conflict and its relationship with the United States and its allies.
“The new language suggests that a non-nuclear weapon state might be an aggressor,” Podvig says. “Apparently, the idea behind the change is to say that this ‘association’ would make the nuclear weapons state that provides this support an aggressor too. It’s the ‘joint attack’ language.”
During the Security Council meeting Putin also said that Russia could resort to nuclear weapons on receiving “reliable information” indicating a large-scale aerial attack involving aircraft, missiles, and drones. Additionally, Moscow would treat an attack on its ally Belarus as an attack on Russia itself, potentially responding with nuclear force to defend Belarus.
On closer examination, Putin’s remarks reflect a more cautious approach than may initially seem. While the rhetoric implies a potential broadening of scenarios in which Russia might consider nuclear deterrence, it does not represent a fundamental departure from the country’s long-standing policies. However, the language remains vague: it fails to define what constitutes an “association” or clarify precisely against whom a nuclear strike might be directed.
Long-Range Strikes May Not Be a Silver Bullet
There are doubts within the policy and expert communities about whether long-range strikes on Russian territory would be a decisive factor in the war. To achieve a significant breakthrough, Ukraine would need to coordinate large-scale ground maneuvers in tandem with these strikes—something its forces have yet to demonstrate. “In its summer 2023 offensive, the Ukrainian military showed no ability to coordinate forces on anything like the scale needed for a decisive breakthrough. Longer-range weapons would make this coordination even more complicated,” writes Stephen Biddle, professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University, in a piece for Foreign Affairs.
Biddle highlights the limitations and challenges of deep strikes in the current context. Such strikes are costly and require precision guidance, which can quickly lose effectiveness as the opposing side adapts.
The historical record on longer-range strikes is not encouraging, notes Biddle. Historically, even large-scale strategic bombing campaigns, including strikes aimed at German and Japanese cities during World War II and North-Korean cities during the Korean War, have not succeeded in breaking the resolve of the targeted country. Additionally, the military benefits of diverting Russian efforts into air defense or disrupting weapons production would require an extensive, sustained campaign that Ukraine is not currently equipped to carry out.
All Eyes on U.S. Voters
The wait for a decision on allowing Ukraine to carry out long-range strikes on Russian territory is closely tied to the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. The two candidates have contrasting views on the Russo-Ukrainian war, which makes the future U.S. stance uncertain. One candidate may push for greater support for Ukraine, potentially approving the use of advanced Western missiles for strikes deeper into Russia, while the other could advocate a more cautious approach, prioritizing de-escalation or negotiations.
This political uncertainty leaves European allies, Ukrainian policymakers, and even Moscow in a holding pattern. For now, decision-makers are watching the United States closely, understanding that the future of support for Ukraine’s military capabilities—and the overall direction of the war—will largely hinge on the results of the upcoming election.
Netanyahu: Israel Is Fighting a War on Seven Fronts
The Israeli leader called the UN General Assembly a ‘Swamp of Antisemitic Bile’
by Kyle Anzalone September 27, 2024, https://news.antiwar.com/2024/09/27/netanyahu-israel-is-fighting-a-war-on-seven-fronts/#gsc.tab=0
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the UN during his remarks at the 79th General Assembly summit on Friday. He called the body a swamp of antisemitism while saying Israel needed to defend itself on seven fronts.
The Israeli leader’s speech was contentious. Before Netanyahu took to the podium, Pakistani Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif blasted Israel for waging a genocide in Gaza and creating a war with Lebanon. As Netanyahu began his address, a large portion of the UN General Assembly body walked out.
During his remarks, Netanyahu referred to the UN General Assembly as a “swamp of antisemitic bile.” He went on to slam the International Criminal Court (ICC) for considering charging him with war crimes, adding the true war criminals are in Iran and its allied nations.
During his address, Netanyahu presented two maps, one titled “the blessing” and the other “the curse.” The Israeli leader said Tel Aviv is still seeking a normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia. He claimed that if Riyadh established official ties with Israel, the world would receive a “blessing,” but Iran represented a “curse” to the region.
The Israeli leader explained “the blessing” was establishing a “landbridge” from India to Israel. The blessing requires Saudi Arabia to enter the Abraham Accords and normalize ties with Israel. Netanyahu claimed that would have happened, but the October 7 Hamas attack prevented the deal.
In the map titled “the curse,” five countries were represented in black: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. The Israeli leader claimed that Tehran was working to eliminate Tel Aviv using its allies in the region. Netanyahu presented the conflict as a battle between forces of civilization against barbarism.
When discussing Gaza, Netanyahu said “Hamas must go.” He added that any end to the war that would see Hamas remain in power in Gaza is equivalent to allowing the Nazis to rebuild Germany after World War II.
As with Hamas, Netanyahu also said Israel would continue to wage war against Hezbollah until all its objectives were met. Over the past week, Tel Aviv has significantly ramped up its military operations in southern Lebanon, killing over 700 in the past week.
Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com, news editor of the Libertarian Institute, and co-host of Conflicts of Interest.
Question for the candidates: Will the United States sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?
By Alicia Sanders-Zakre | September 20, 2024 Alicia Sanders-Zakre is the Policy and Research Coordinator at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. https://thebulletin.org/2024/09/will-the-united-states-sign-and-ratify-the-treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFoiE5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXWHz4dPKx6qA6gXNV_3JCT1LqSA4SpW4InKnv6GP0M0A5RzBvtaJMfokw_aem_nT8dnPTOYgkrNFm4kOHKTA
Before the 2016 US presidential election, Princeton physicist Zia Mian wrote an essay asking then-candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the Bulletin whether they would be ready to start talks to ban nuclear weapons. Eight years and two presidents later, both the Trump and Biden administrations have rebuffed the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and chosen instead to persist with current US policies to maintain and upgrade nuclear weapons—despite a legal obligation to disarm, public support for the TPNW, and the existential threat to humanity of adherence to the debated theory of nuclear deterrence.
The TPNW is the first international treaty banning all nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear use and threat of use, testing, stationing, and development. The treaty’s Article 4 provides a verifiable pathway for nuclear-armed states to join and disarm. And Articles 6 and 7 create the first international regime to provide assistance and remediation to people and environments harmed by nuclear weapons use and testing; an effort led by countries that have been bombarded by Soviet and British nuclear detonations. This treaty currently has 93 signatory states and 70 states parties from every region of the world.
The United States—like other nuclear-armed countries—has chosen to undermine and dismiss this good faith effort by nearly half the world’s governments, including US allies, to rid the world of nuclear weapons. In 2020, the Trump administration even urged states to withdraw their instruments of ratification. Meanwhile, the United States has failed to implement the obligation it undertook more than half a century ago under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to pursue nuclear disarmament and instead spent $51.5 billion in 2023 alone to upgrade its nuclear arsenal. The continued investment of nuclear powers in maintaining and rebuilding their nuclear arsenals, while paying mere lip service to disarmament, is a source of contention within the NPT and undermines the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
Foreign policy goals aside, US presidential candidates should adhere to democratic principles and align their policies with public opinion and support for the treaty among local governments to join the TPNW: According to a 2022 study, 65 percent of the US population supports joining the TPNW. Cities and towns across the country—from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles to Yellow Springs, Ohio—have adopted local resolutions calling on their government to join, alongside five US states. Members of the US Congress, as well as local and state politicians, have also called on the United States to join the ban treaty.
Support for the TPNW is based on a clear-eyed assessment of the risks that nuclear weapons pose as long as they exist—and an understanding of the naiveté of relying on the rationality of statemen like Russian President Vladimir Putin, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, or former US president Donald Trump to decide the fate of humanity.
Scholars have shown that the reason humanity has escaped nuclear annihilation since the dawn of the nuclear age may have more to do with sheer luck than with any successful strategy.
No one will want to be around when luck runs out.
We know all too well what that would look like and the incapacity of humanitarian organizations to respond. A new report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons documents in gut-wrenching detail the harm that nuclear weapons have done to children and the threat they continue to pose to them, including those bombed by the United States in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some of those children survived and now give testimony to—and remind leaders of—the urgent need to abolish these weapons. This report adds to the robust body of literature on the devastating humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons.
Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the United States and the world have continued to face the threat of accidental or intentional nuclear annihilation, a threat that has continued to grow in recent years. It is time to chart a new course and to eliminate nuclear weapons, which is the only fail-safe way to eliminate the threat of their use.
Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump should be asked: If elected President, will you sign and submit to the Senate for ratification the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?
Lawmakers to Investigate Faulty Sub, Carrier Welding at Newport News Shipbuilding
USNI News, Sam LaGrone, September 27, 2024
THE PENTAGON – The House Armed Services Committee is investigating substandard welding on submarines and aircraft carriers at Newport News Shipbuilding, the committee announced on Friday.
Following a Thursday report in USNI News, lawmakers are now looking into how shipbuilders at the Virginia yard had violated proper welding procedures on work that made it into current in-service submarines. The flawed work was found by quality assurance teams at Newport News Shipbuilding, which has led to a wider investigation into welding quality that’s prompted a notification to the Department of Justice, USNI News reported.
“It is deeply concerning to learn that faulty welds may have been knowingly made to U.S. Navy submarines and aircraft carriers. The House Armed Services Committee is investigating how this occurred. The safety of our sailors is our top concern, and we need to immediately understand any risks associated with the faulty work,” reads the statement from HASC chair Rep Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), ranking member Rep Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee leaders Rep. Trent Kelly (R-Miss.) and Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.).
“The Department of Defense needs to immediately provide our committee with answers and a plan for how they will protect U.S. Navy vessels against tampering. Absolute transparency with Congress is essential.”
The Congressional query comes as the Navy and shipbuilder HII are gauging the scope of the ships that were affected overall. The number of in-service Virginia-class submarines that have been affected are in the “low single digits” and an ongoing analysis of under-construction Virginia, Columbia-class submarines and Ford-class aircraft carriers could stretch into October, a defense official told USNI News on Friday.
Earlier this year, quality assurance teams at Newport News discovered the sub-standard welds and reported the violations in procedure to both the Navy and the Department of Justice, according to a Friday statement on LinkedIn by Newport News president Jennifer Boykin.
“We recently discovered that the quality of certain welds on submarines and aircraft carriers under construction here at NNS do not meet our high-quality standards. Most concerning is that some of the welds in question were made by welders who knowingly violated weld procedures.” she wrote.
“We immediately put together a team made up of both internal and independent engineering and quality subject matter experts to determine the root causes, bound the issue and put in place immediate short-term corrective actions as we work through longer-term solutions.”
Boykin went on to say HII notified both the Navy and the Department of Justice on the sub-standard work………………………………………………………………………………………….
Neither HII nor the Navy have said when the initial faulty work was discovered.
While the assessment of the overall welds on the ships under construction could extend into next month, the Navy and HII now have the tedious task of reinspecting the welds and determining solutions.
Twice in the 2000s, the Navy mounted separate investigations into suspicious welds into then Northrop Grumman-managed Newport News Shipbuilding. In 2007, the Navy found welders used the wrong filler material in non-nuclear pipping on Virginia submarines. In 2009, the Navy had to reinspect the welds on nine submarines and four aircraft carriers after a shipyard inspector admitted to falsifying inspection reports, according to The Virginian Pilot.
The inspections can involve analyzing welds that are difficult to reach throughout a submarine or aircraft carrier. The subsequent weld checks after the 2009 investigation took years, USNI News understands. https://news.usni.org/2024/09/27/lawmakers-announce-investigation-into-faulty-submarine-carrier-welding-at-newport-news-shipbuilding-ships-affected-in-low-single-digits-officials-say
New NATO member Finland to place command center near Russian border
https://www.rt.com/news/604782-finland-new-nato-command/ 30 Sept 24
Finland will host the bloc’s HQ for Northern Europe in Mikkeli, less than 200km from the frontier.
Finland will host a new NATO command base responsible for operations in Northern Europe in the city of Mikkeli, less than 200km from the Russian border, Helsinki announced on Friday.
Finland formally joined the US-led military bloc along with Sweden following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Moscow has argued that the two nations compromised their own security by becoming part of what it perceives as a hostile organization that serves US geopolitical interests, while sacrificing their credibility as possible neutral mediators.
The new Multi Corps Land Component Command (MCLCC) will be under the authority of NATO’s Joint Force Command (JFC) in Norfolk, Virginia. Initially, it will comprise only a few dozen service members, Defense Minister Antti Hakkanen told journalists.
“NATO recognizes Finland’s expertise and trusts our ability to contribute to the defense of the northern region,” he said.
The bloc approved the creation of the new command center during its leaders’ summit in July. Helsinki allocated some €8.5 million ($9.5 million) in 2024 for the creation of the MCLCC.
The commander of the Finnish Defense Forces, General Janne Jaakkola, has said that placing the new NATO structure in close proximity to the headquarters of the Finnish Army “fosters cooperation between the national and the Allies’ forces, creating obvious synergy benefits.”
Hakkanen, also said he would soon announce where a new multinational force that Finland intends to host will be based. According to the state broadcaster Yle, Helsinki will choose between Rovaniemi and Sodankyla. The former is the capital of the northern region of Finnish Lapland, while the latter is a municipality located in the same province but closer to the Russian border.
NATO intensified its military buildup in Europe in 2014, following the US-backed armed coup in Kiev, claiming that it was preparing to respond to possible Russian aggression. The military bloc has significantly expanded its presence in Europe, breaking assurances given to Moscow to secure Russia’s support for the reunification of Germany in 1990.
Pentagon “goes to school” -William Hartung, The Battle for the Soul of American Science
“……………………………………………. Hartung, a Pentagon expert, has focused on this strange reality of ours: no matter how many wars the United States loses, it only pours yet more taxpayer dollars into the Pentagon budget and into the coffers of those giant weapons-making companies of the military-industrial-congressional complex.
September 29, 2024, Tomgram
………………………………………………… Yet, after all these years, what couldn’t be more striking today is that, in the same spirit as those older pieces, Hartung focuses (as he so often has) on a different aspect entirely of the Pentagon’s distinctly over-funded world, one that, amid all the news coverage in this country, gets little or no attention: how the Pentagon, as he puts it, “goes to school” to enlist American science in the battle to create yet more horrific weaponry.
Pentagon expert William Hartung first wandered into TomDispatch in March 2008, less than seven years after this country’s Global War(s) on Terror were launched, full-scale disasters that were already costing the American taxpayer a fortune and a half — or perhaps, given the subject, all too literally an arm and a leg. As he wrote then, “How much, for instance, does one week of George Bush’s wars cost? Glad you asked. If we consider the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan together — which we might as well do, since we and our children and grandchildren will be paying for them together into the distant future — a conservative, single-week estimate comes to $3.5 billion. Remember, that’s per week! By contrast, the whole international community spends less than $400 million per year on the International Atomic Energy Agency, the primary institution for monitoring and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons; that’s less than one day’s worth of war costs.”
Only $650 million or so of that weekly sum, he estimated, was “spent on people.” So, he wondered, “where does the other nearly $3 billion go?” The answer he offered then: “It goes for goods and services, from tanks and fighter planes to fuel and food. Most of this money ends up in the hands of private companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the former Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root.” And knowing about that expense of $3.5 billion a week “and counting” on America’s wars, he added sarcastically, “Doesn’t that make you feel safer?”
Ever since then, Hartung, a Pentagon expert, has focused on this strange reality of ours: no matter how many wars the United States loses, it only pours yet more taxpayer dollars into the Pentagon budget and into the coffers of those giant weapons-making companies of the military-industrial-congressional complex. Even the titles of a few of his pieces over the years catch the grim spirit of his all-too-striking analysis: “There’s No Business Like the Arms Business, Weapons ‘R’ Us (But You’d Never Know It)” (July 2016); “The Urge to Splurge, Why Is It So Hard to Reduce the Pentagon Budget?” (October 2016); “The American Way of War Is a Budget-Breaker, Never Has a Society Spent More for Less” (May 2017); “Merger Mania, The Military-Industrial Complex on Steroids” (July 2019); “America Dominant Again (in Arms Sales), And Again… and Again… And Again” (May 2021); “Fueling the Warfare State, America’s $1.4 Trillion ‘National Security’ Budget Makes Us Ever Less Safe” (July 2022); “Spending Unlimited, The Pentagon’s Budget Follies Come at a High Price” (March 2024).
And of course, that’s just a small dip into the pieces he’s written for TomDispatch. Yet, after all these years, what couldn’t be more striking today is that, in the same spirit as those older pieces, Hartung focuses (as he so often has) on a different aspect entirely of the Pentagon’s distinctly over-funded world, one that, amid all the news coverage in this country, gets little or no attention: how the Pentagon, as he puts it, “goes to school” to enlist American science in the battle to create yet more horrific weaponry. And so it goes, again and again and again. Tom
The Pentagon Goes to School. The Battle for the Soul of American Science. Bringing the Militarization of University Research Back to Earth
The divestment campaigns launched last spring by students protesting Israel’s mass slaughter in Gaza brought the issue of the militarization of American higher education back into the spotlight.
Of course, financial ties between the Pentagon and American universities are nothing new. As Stuart Leslie has pointed out in his seminal book on the topic, The Cold War and American Science, “In the decade following World War II, the Department of Defense (DOD) became the biggest patron of American science.” Admittedly, as civilian institutions like the National Institutes of Health grew larger, the Pentagon’s share of federal research and development did decline, but it still remained a source of billions of dollars in funding for university research.
And now, Pentagon-funded research is once again on the rise, driven by the DOD’s recent focus on developing new technologies like weapons driven by artificial intelligence (AI). Combine that with an intensifying drive to recruit engineering graduates and the forging of partnerships between professors and weapons firms and you have a situation in which many talented technical types could spend their entire careers serving the needs of the warfare state. The only way to head off such a Brave New World would be greater public pushback against the military conquest (so to speak) of America’s research and security agendas, in part through resistance by scientists and engineers whose skills are so essential to building the next generation of high-tech weaponry.
The Pentagon Goes to School
Yes, the Pentagon’s funding of universities is indeed rising once again and it goes well beyond the usual suspects like MIT or Johns Hopkins University. In 2022, the most recent year for which full data is available, 14 universities received at least — and brace yourself for this — $100 million in Pentagon funding, from Johns Hopkins’s astonishing $1.4 billion (no, that is not a typo!) to Colorado State’s impressive $100 million. And here’s a surprise: two of the universities with the most extensive connections to our weaponry of the future are in Texas: the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin) and Texas A&M.
In 2020, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and former Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy appeared onstage at a UT-Austin ceremony to commemorate the creation of a robotics lab there, part of a new partnership between the Army Futures Command and the school. “This is ground zero for us in our research for the weapons systems we’re going to develop for decades to come,” said McCarthy.
Not to be outdone, Texas A&M is quietly becoming the Pentagon’s base for research on hypersonics — weapons expected to travel five times the speed of sound. Equipped with a kilometer-long tunnel for testing hypersonic missiles, that school’s University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics is explicitly dedicated to outpacing America’s global rivals in the development of that next generation military technology. Texas A&M is also part of the team that runs the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the (in)famous New Mexico facility where the first nuclear weapons were developed and tested as part of the Manhattan Project under the direction of Robert Oppenheimer.
Other major players include Carnegie Mellon University, a center for Army research on the applications of AI, and Stanford University, which serves as a feeder to California’s Silicon Valley firms of all types. That school also runs the Technology Transfer for Defense (TT4D) Program aimed at transitioning academic technologies from the lab to the marketplace and exploring the potential military applications of emerging technology products.
In addition, the Pentagon is working aggressively to bring new universities into the fold. In January 2023, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced the creation of a defense-funded research center at Howard University, the first of its kind at a historically black college.
Given the campus Gaza demonstrations of last spring, perhaps you also won’t be surprised to learn that the recent surge in Pentagon spending faces increasing criticism from students and faculty alike. Targets of protest include the Lavender program, which has used AI to multiply the number of targets the Israeli armed forces can hit in a given time frame. But beyond focusing on companies enabling Israel’s war effort, current activists are also looking at the broader role of their universities in the all-American war system.
For example, at Indiana University research on ties to companies fueling the killings in Gaza grew into a study of the larger role of universities in supporting the military system as a whole. Student activists found that the most important connection involved that university’s ties to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, whose mission is “to provide acquisition, engineering… and technical support for sensors, electronics, electronic warfare, and special warfare weapons.” In response, student activists have launched a “Keep Crane Off Campus” campaign.
A Science of Death or for Life?
Graduating science and engineering students increasingly face a moral dilemma about whether they want to put their skills to work developing instruments of death. Journalist Indigo Olivier captured that conflict in a series of interviews with graduating engineering students. She quotes one at the University of West Florida who strongly opposes doing weapons work this way: “When it comes to engineering, we do have a responsibility… Every tool can be a weapon… I don’t really feel like I need to be putting my gifts to make more bombs.”
By contrast, Cameron Davis, a 2021 computer engineering graduate from Georgia Tech, told Olivier about the dilemma faced by so many graduating engineers: “A lot of people that I talk to aren’t 100% comfortable working on defense contracts, working on things that are basically going to kill people.” But he went on to say that the high pay at weapons firms “drives a lot of your moral disagreements with defense away.”
The choice faced by today’s science and engineering graduates is nothing new. The use of science for military ends has a long history in the United States. But there have also been numerous examples of scientists who resisted dangerous or seemingly unworkable military schemes……………………………………………………………………………………………
Scientists have also played a leading role in pressing for nuclear arms control and disarmament, founding organizations like the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (1945), the Federation of American Scientists (1945), the global Pugwash movement (1957), the Council for a Livable World (1962), and the Union of Concerned Scientists (1969). To this day, all of them continue to work to curb the threat of a nuclear war that could destroy this planet as a livable place for humanity.
A central figure in this movement was Joseph Rotblat, the only scientist to resign from the Manhattan Project over moral qualms about the potential impact of the atomic bomb. In 1957, he helped organize the founding meeting of the Pugwash Conference, an international organization devoted to the control and ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. In some respects Pugwash was a forerunner of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which successfully pressed for the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force in January 2021.
Enabling Endless War and Widespread Torture
The social sciences also have a long, conflicted history of ties to the Pentagon and the military services. Two prominent examples from earlier in this century were the Pentagon’s Human Terrain Program (HTS) and the role of psychologists in crafting torture programs associated with the Global War on Terror, launched after the 9/11 attacks with the invasion of Afghanistan.
………………………………………………An even more controversial use of social scientists in the service of the war machine was the role of psychologists as advisors to the CIA’s torture programs at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, the Guantánamo Bay detention center in Cuba, and other of that agency’s “black sites.” ……………………………………………………………
today, resistance to the militarization of science has extended to the growing use of artificial intelligence and other emerging military technologies. For example, in 2018, there was a huge protest movement at Google when employees learned that the company was working on Project Maven, a communications network designed to enable more accurate drone strikes. More than 4,000 Google scientists and engineers signed a letter to company leadership calling for them to steer clear of military work, dozens resigned over the issue, and the protests had a distinct effect on the company. That year, Google announced that it would not renew its Project Maven contract, and pledged that it “will not design or deploy AI” for weapons.
Unfortunately, the lure of military funding was simply too strong. Just a few years after those Project Maven protests, Google again began doing work for the Pentagon,…………………………………….
The Future of American Science
……………………………………………………………………The stakes are particularly high now, given the ongoing rush to develop AI-driven weaponry and other emerging technologies that pose the risk of everything from unintended slaughter due to system malfunctions to making war more likely, given the (at least theoretical) ability to limit casualties for the attacking side. In short, turning back the flood of funding for military research and weaponry from the Pentagon and key venture capital firms will be a difficult undertaking. After all, AI is already performing a wide range of military and civilian tasks. Banning it altogether may no longer be a realistic goal, but putting guardrails around its military use might still be.
Such efforts are, in fact, already underway. The International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC) has called for an international dialogue on “the pressing dangers that these systems pose to peace and international security and to civilians.”………………………………….
The Future of Life Institute has underscored the severity of the risk, noting that “more than half of AI experts believe there is a one in ten chance this technology will cause our extinction.”
Instead of listening almost exclusively to happy talk about the military value of AI by individuals and organizations that stand to profit from its adoption, isn’t it time to begin paying attention to the skeptics, while holding back on the deployment of emerging military technologies until there is a national conversation about what they can and can’t accomplish, with scientists playing a central role in bringing the debate back to earth?
https://tomdispatch.com/the-pentagon-goes-to-school/
Nuclear power for AI: what it will take to reopen Three Mile Island safely
As Microsoft strikes a deal to restart a reactor at the notorious power station, Nature talks to nuclear specialists about the unprecedented process.
Michael Greshko, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03162-2 30 Sept 24
Microsoft announced on 20 September that it had struck a 20-year deal to purchase energy from a dormant nuclear power plant that will be brought back online. And not just any plant: Three Mile Island, the facility in Londonderry Township, Pennsylvania, that was the site of the worst-ever nuclear accident on US soil when a partial meltdown of one of its reactors occurred in 1979.
The move, which symbolizes technology giants’ need to power their growing artificial-intelligence (AI) efforts, raises questions over how shuttered nuclear plants can be restarted safely — not least because Three Mile Island isn’t the only plant being brought out of retirement.
Palisades Nuclear Plant, an 805-megawatt facility in Covert, Michigan, was shut down in May 2022. But the energy company that owns it, Holtec International, based in Jupiter, Florida, plans to reopen it. This reversal in the facility’s fortunes has been bolstered by a US$1.5-billion conditional loan commitment from the US Department of Energy (DoE), which sees nuclear plants — a source of low-carbon electricity — as a way of helping the country to meet its ambitious climate goals. The Palisades plant is on track to reopen in late 2025.
“It’s the first time something like this has been attempted, that we’re aware of, worldwide,” says Jason Kozal, director of the reactor safety division at a regional office of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in Naperville, Illinois, and the co-chair of a regulatory panel overseeing the restart of Palisades.
Here, Nature talks to nuclear specialists about what it will take to restart these plants and whether more are on the way as the world’s demand for AI grows.
A change in fortunes
Since 2012, more than a dozen nuclear plants have been shut down in the United States, in some cases as a result of unfavourable economics. Less cost-effective plants — such as those with only a single working reactor — struggled to remain profitable in states with deregulated electricity markets and widely varying prices. Three Mile Island, owned by the utility company Constellation Energy in Baltimore, Maryland, is a prime example. Today, 54 US plants remain in operation, running a total of 94 reactors.
Nuclear energy, which accounts for about 9% of the world’s electricity, has seen some resurgence internationally, but is also competing with other energy sources, including renewables. After the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster, Japan suspended operations at all of its 48 remaining nuclear plants, but these are gradually being brought back online, in part to cut dependence on gas imports. By contrast, Germany announced a phase-out of its nuclear plants in 2011, and shut down its last three in 2023.
In the United States, nuclear energy’s fortunes might be turning as technology companies race to build enormous, energy-gobbling data centres to support their AI systems and other applications while somehow fulfilling their climate pledges. Microsoft, for instance, has committed to being carbon negative by 2030.
It’s further confirmation of the value of nuclear, and, if the deal is right — if the price is right — then it makes business sense, as well,” says Jacopo Buongiorno, the director of the Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.
A new start
This isn’t the first time that the United States has brought a powered-down reactor back online. In 1985, for example, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federally owned electric utility company, took the reactors at its Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant in Athens, Alabama, offline. After years of refurbishment, they were brought back online, with the final reactor restarted in 2007.
The cases of Palisades and Three Mile Island are different, however. When those plants closed, their then-owners made legal statements that the facilities would be shut down, even though their operating licenses were still active. Three Mile Island, which will be renamed the Crane Clean Energy Center under the proposed restart, shut down its single remaining functional reactor in 2019.
Because the plants were slated for shutdown and safety checks were therefore stopped, regulators and companies must now navigate a complex licensing, oversight and environmental-assessment process to reverse the plants’ decommissioning.
Safety checks will be needed to ensure, among other things, that the plants can operate securely once uranium fuel rods have been replaced in their reactors. When these plants were decommissioned, their radioactive fuel was removed and stored, so the facilities no longer needed to adhere to many exacting technical specifications, says Jamie Pelton, also a co-chair of the Palisades restart panel, and a deputy director at the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in Rockville, Maryland.
It will be no small feat to reinstate those safety regulations: to meet the standards, infrastructure will need to be inspected carefully. According to Buongiorno, any metallic components in the plants that have corroded since the shutdowns, including wires and cables used in instrumentation and controls, will need to be replaced.
The plants’ turbine generators, which make electricity from the steam produced as the plants’ fuel rods heat up water, will also get a close look. After sitting dormant for years, a turbine could develop defects within its shaft or corrosion along its blades that would require refurbishment. In the case of Palisades, the NRC announced on 18 September that the plant’s steam generators would need further testing and repair, following inspections conducted by Holtec.
Nuclear’s prospects
As the plants near their restart dates, their operators will also have to contend with a challenge faced by even fully operational plants: the need to source fresh nuclear fuel. US nuclear utility companies have long counted on the international market to buy much of the necessary raw yellowcake uranium and the services that separate and enrich uranium-235, the isotope used in nuclear reactors’ fuel rods. Russia has been a major international supplier of these services, even after the country’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, because US and European sanctions have not targeted nuclear fuel. But to minimize its reliance on Russia, the United States is building up its own supply chain, with the DoE offering $3.4 billion to buy domestically enriched uranium.
There probably won’t be too many other restarts of mothballed nuclear plants in the United States, however, even as demand for low-carbon electricity grows. Not every US plant that has been shut down is necessarily in good enough condition to be easily refurbished — and the idea of reopening some of those would meet with too much resistance. As an example, Buongiorno points to New York’s Indian Point Energy Center, which was closed in 2021. The plant’s proximity to New York City had long provoked criticism from nuclear-safety advocates.
But that doesn’t mean that all of these sites will remain unused. One option is to build advanced reactors — including large reactors with upgraded safety features and small modular reactors with innovative designs — on sites where old nuclear plants once stood, to take advantage of existing transmission lines and infrastructure. “We might see interest in the US in building more of these large reactors, whether that’s fuelled by data centres or some other applications,” Buongiorno adds. “Utilities and customers are exploring this at the moment.”
Huge Arctic wildfires release 100m tonnes of greenhouse gas in a year
Scientists are alarmed at how extreme the blazes have become as the climate
changes, and 2024 ranks as the fourth worst year for emissions from Arctic
fires. Huge wildfires have blazed across the Arctic this summer, releasing
almost as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the petrostate Kuwait
emits annually.
Fires in the carbon-rich frozen soils in the north of
Russia, Canada and other countries occur naturally as a result of lightning
strikes. Sometimes they spread south into the ring of boreal forests.
Scientists are alarmed at how extreme the blazes have become in recent
years as the climate changes. The Arctic’s worst year on record was 2020,
followed by 2019 and 2004.
Times 30th Sept 2024, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environment/article/huge-arctic-wildfires-release-100m-tonnes-of-greenhouse-gas-in-a-year-ncb8cmdfq
Biden would rather defend Israeli impunity than stop a regional war
As Israel intensified its deadly attacks on Lebanon, the U.S. moved more troops to the Middle East. The move shows Joe Biden’s priority is not to avoid escalation but to ensure that Israel has full impunity.
Mondoweiss. By Mitchell Plitnick September 27, 2024
As Israel was intensifying its deadly attacks on Lebanon, the United States decided to move more troops to the Middle East. The number of soldiers was not announced, but the force was said to be small.
The stated purpose was to protect Americans stationed in the region, but the more likely reason was to send a message to Iran, Ansarallah, and other allies of Hezbollah that the United States would protect Israel in the event of escalation, regardless of who was responsible for that escalation.
U.S. President Joe Biden might hope that such a message would deter escalation, but his decision to communicate it by increasing the U.S. military presence rather than acting to restrain Israel demonstrates that, just as with Gaza, Biden’s priority is not to avoid escalation, but to ensure that Israel has full impunity to act as it wants.
Confronting Iran is Israel’s endgame
In fact, this response plays right into the tactics Israel is pursuing in its attack on Lebanon. The Israeli right doesn’t have a real strategy, but it has long clung to an ideological belief that Israel should throw off the “restraints” placed on it by the United States and Europe and fully exercise its military might to utterly destroy its enemies.
This is what has played out in Gaza since last October. The genocidal campaign is meant not to destroy Hamas, but rather to destroy the Palestinian national movement. That’s why it was inevitable that the genocide would expand to the West Bank, despite the fact that there were virtually no Palestinian actions there in response to the horror in Gaza.
The Israeli right believes it must decisively defeat Iran, not merely deter it. Israel’s provocative actions such as its bombing of the Iranian embassy in Syria and assassinating Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran were meant to force a response from Iran that would escalate regional tensions. Iran didn’t take the bait, despite the fact that its lack of response to Israel’s activities invites more and greater provocative Israeli actions.
The latest Israeli escalation indicates that Israel is making good on its promise to shift its attention from Gaza to Lebanon. That won’t mean the slaughter in Gaza will stop, but it will mean that Israel will focus its forces more in the north once it feels it is ready to engage Hezbollah on the ground, an eventuality its current activities are an attempt at paving the path toward.
Both Israeli and American military leaders are less enthusiastic about escalation with Lebanon……………………………………………………………………
A potential Iranian diplomatic response
Iran has been an obsession for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from his earliest days in the public eye. Few in Israel disagree with that obsession, but past governments had significant internal dissent from the idea of provoking a conflict with the Islamic Republic.
This government is much more willing to take bold steps to provoke that confrontation. Worse, successive American administrations have raised Israeli hopes that they can get the support from Washington that they would need to effectively fight Iran. ……………………………………………………………………………………… more https://mondoweiss.net/2024/09/biden-would-rather-defend-israeli-impunity-than-stop-a-regional-war/
-
Archives
- October 2026 (120)
- 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)
- November 2025 (359)
-
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
