nuclear-news

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

When you combine AI and nuclear power, the results can be catastrophic 

by Linda Parks, opinion contributor  – 11/10/24,  https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4981304-microsoft-ai-nuclear-power-dangers/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGeg21leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWYiopnuIePPG9Ljv_TROxe6zZNXuK_9Be67zrRjotECxbLEyeCYwMBE3A_aem_aflz3yBO4ySUH5GvKjedCQ

The recent news that Microsoft has made a deal to restart the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant to run its AI data centers brings together two technologies that have each been described as having the potential for a “nuclear-level catastrophe.”

Putting aside whether AI is mature enough to be feeding it with astronomical amounts of our energy supplies, powering it with renewable energy is critical for our energy future and safety.

Mark Jacobson, director of Stanford’s atmosphere and energy program, finds that “Every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on clean renewable energy and one more dollar spent on making the world a comparatively dirtier and more dangerous place, because nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand.”

It is a fallacy to think that nuclear power is reasonable when compared with renewable energy sources. In fact, nuclear energy and its carcinogenic radioactive waste is the most dangerous and fiscally risky energy option.  

The deal that Gov. Gavin Newsom and California State Legislature struck with Pacific Gas and Electric to extend the life of its last nuclear plant, the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant, will saddle California ratepayers with some of the highest electricity rates in the nation for years to come. Yet such rate increases are unnecessary thanks to the state’s rapid transition to renewable energy and an estimated 13,391 MW of battery storage — well above the 2,200 MW produced by Diablo Canyon’s reactors.  

Now is the time to be clear-eyed and double down on renewable energy. With the energy demands of AI increasing, other states are considering following the same expensive and dangerous path as Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant, the site of the country’s worst commercial nuclear accident. Even with Microsoft’s investment, the deal is reliant on massive government subsidies. Without those government handouts, powering AI data centers with nuclear power doesn’t pencil out.  

Nuclear plants cost billions of dollars to build and billions of dollars to upgrade. That’s why the nuclear industry depends on tax dollars, tax credits (like Three Mile Island), and ratepayers to pay higher electricity bills.

That same transfer of costs onto the backs of the public occurs if there’s a nuclear accident. A “nuclear-level catastrophe” at a nuclear power plant would leave the public with uninsurable property loss, astronomical clean-up costs and, more importantly, the very real human costs — particularly to young children, who are most vulnerable to radiation. The lack of any solution for nuclear waste disposal further extends the risk of radiation exposure out tens of thousands of years into the future

When the safety of nuclear plants becomes questionable, like at Diablo Canyon (unknowingly built along active earthquake faults) and with Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and the Santa Susana Field Lab all happening in our lifetimes, it becomes abundantly clear that nuclear accidents happen. The fallout isn’t worth the risk.  

Big tech needs to find more energy-efficient ways to run AI data centers, and direct its major energy investments, along with the government, to clean renewable energy that doesn’t make our world dirtier and more dangerous. 

Linda Parks is on the board of Mothers for Peace, an organization committed to the decommissioning of the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant. She is executive director of Save Open-space and Agricultural Resources in Ventura County and is on the board of the Environmental Defense Center. She served on the Ventura County Board of Supervisors from 2003-2022 and was a mayor and councilmember of Thousand Oaks. While a supervisor, she chaired the Ventura County Regional Energy Alliance and was a founding member and vice chair of the Clean Power Alliance.  

November 11, 2024 Posted by | safety | Leave a comment

US F-15 Fighter Jets Arrive in Middle East as Part of Buildup Aimed at Iran

The US announced last week that it was sending additional military assets to the region for the ‘defense’ of Israelby Dave DeCamp November 7, 2024 

By Dave DeCamp / Antiwar.com,  https://news.antiwar.com/2024/11/07/us-f-15-fighter-jets-arrive-in-middle-east-as-part-of-buildup-aimed-at-iran/

The US military said Thursday that additional F-15 fighter jets arrived in the Middle East as part of a buildup meant as a threat to Iran as Tehran is vowing it will respond to Israel’s October 26 airstrikes on Iranian territory.

“Today, US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles from the 492nd Fighter Squadron, RAF Lakenheath, England, arrive in the US Central Command area of responsibility,” US Central Command wrote on X.

The Pentagon announced last week that it was sending additional military assets to the region for the “defense” of Israel. CENTCOM said that B-52 bombers arrived in the region on November 2.

According to flight and satellite data, six US B-52 bombers are at al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Haaretz reported that the US F-15 fighter jets were being sent to Jordan. The Pentagon said it would also be deploying additional US Navy destroyers and tanker aircraft to the region.

Before the latest US deployments, the Pentagon sent a THAAD missile defense system and about 100 troops to Israel. The US assets in Israel and elsewhere in the region could become potential targets of Iranian missiles since the US is vowing to defend Israel.

Recent media reports have said Iran is planning to launch a major attack on Israel from Iraqi territory. Baghdad has denied the rumors, saying they’re “false pretexts” to justify aggression against Iraq.

November 11, 2024 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Everybody Wants to Join BRICS

 CounterPunch, November 9, 2024 Eve Ottenberg

If there’s one thing the recent BRICS summit in Kazan revealed, it’s that when you divide the world into the West and the Rest, the Rest is a lot bigger and quite alienated from the western oligarchy. Much of the Rest also wants to join BRICS. After all, it’s a good deal: A way to forge economic and political connections and to adopt sane economic policies, without a bully like Washington meddling in your affairs. What’s not to like? At a time when Europe has forgotten Bismarck’s motto – that the secret to success in politics is a good treaty with Russia – and no one in Washington ever heard of it, going back generations to archaic American lies about bolshevism, while this is the case in the west, much of the Rest has learned the value of such a treaty. And not just with Russia, with China and India as well.


After Kazan, BRICS now boasts nine members and 13 partner countries, all dedicated to multipolarity. Another key aim, according to Geopolitical Economy October 26, is fostering “alternative economic institutions that are more representative and democratic, not dominated by the western powers.” In other words, the Global South is sick of IMF and World Bank debt traps and sees BRICS as a convenient exit from what Bolivian president Luis Arce described in Kazan as “the tyranny of the dollar.” BRICS provides this hope because its members contain over 40 percent of Earth’s population, 30 percent of global oil production, and over one-third of world GDP (in purchasing power parity), reports Geopolitical Economy. G7 nations are much smaller, with “less than 10 percent of the world population and under 30 percent of GDP.” BRICS nations have apparently tired of the global aristocracy.

BRICS’ original five members are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Its four new members are Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. It recently accepted 13 partners – Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. Argentina, under center-left president Alberto Fernandez 2023, accepted joining BRICS, but reactionary ruler Javier Milei was too busy destroying Argentina’s economy, which he has accomplished with remarkable speed, and he canceled the BRICS accession bid tout de suite. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, doubtless under intense pressure from Washington to spurn BRICS, remains firmly on the fence.

One word sums up Washington’s aversion to BRICS: de-dollarization. With Russia and China in the lead, BRICS encourages its members and partners to trade in local currencies, not, as previously, in dollars. This weakens the greenback’s position as the world reserve currency, and with enough of that, there could be serious repercussions here in what Fidel Castro called the heart of the empire. But it’s not just BRICS. Eighty nations have determined to conduct their trade in local currencies. Many of these are not even in BRICS – like lots in the Association of South East Asian Nations. Abandoning the dollar has, most unfortunately for us Americans, come to be viewed as a national security move.

De-dollarization, would not even be a thing, had not the geniuses in the Biden white house weaponized the American currency like no tomorrow. Between massive sanctions on anybody Washington doesn’t like and outright theft of foreigner’s financial assets stored in western banks, non-western money managers became a little, well, leery, of the Exceptional Empire’s previously accepted financial hegemony. So listen up, Washington: The U.S. has had a very nice deal with the dollar since the end of World War II, but now courtesy of BRICS, and more significantly, our own idiotic and near-sighted foreign economic policies, we glimpse the very beginning of the end. Maybe Trump’s vow to ditch sanctions makes sense?

After all, what have sanctions done for us lately besides backfire? …………………………………………….

BRICS is not going away. Neither is the G7. Nor, for the moment, is their adversarial relationship, but that could change. Remember, as Moon of Alabama posted October 25, “BRICS is a long-term project.” Realistically, despite the hype, as he observes, it won’t replace the dollar, nor is it a military alliance. As both MofA and Geopolitical Economy note, the truly eye-popping BRICS development occurred shortly before the summit. That was India abandoning its anti-China policies, which the U.S. had nurtured, and, per MofA “shunning U.S. attempts to make it a sidekick for U.S. policies in Asia.”

Asia Times elaborated October 24: “India and China have recently agreed to disengage from their prolonged border standoff in the western sector of the India-China Himalayan border on the sidelines of the 16th BRICS summit.” In other words, BRICS facilitated a gigantic step toward peace between two nuclear-armed nations. For that alone, humanity should be grateful to this institution, even if Washington isn’t.

But maybe it’s time for a different method from Inside the Beltway, one that is less arrogant and no longer demands allies approach it on their knees. The world is changing, but Washington remains frozen and indeed left behind in its post-1991 delusion as the unipolar global chieftain and its “my way or the highway” attitude to everything beyond its borders. This is simply no longer sustainable, just as, someday soon, the mega-brains in the white house may come to realize that supporting over 800 foreign military bases is unsustainable. Insanity can be temporary. Reason can regain lost ground. Let’s hope with Joe “We Rule the World” Biden’s departure from Washington, it becomes safe for rationality to return.

Eve Ottenberg is a novelist and journalist. Her latest novel is Booby Prize. She can be reached at her website. https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/11/08/everybody-wants-to-join-brics/

November 11, 2024 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Rafael Gross’ and the IAEA’s breath-taking hypocrisy , as the nuclear lobby revs up for COP 28.

November 2023

There is no limit to their bravado and hypocrisy. They know that nuclear power is really for the weapons industry. They know it is not really safe. That it emits radiation – causes cancer. That there’s no solution for its eternal toxic wastes. That it is obscenely expensive.

And – they know that even if nuclear works against climate change (which it doesn’t), it would never be up and running in time to make any difference, as climate change is upon us now.

Does that stop these shameless hypocrites?

“In his opening statement to the IAEA’s Board of Governors today, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi spoke of the importance of food security in a world where hunger is on the rise, and in many cases is worsening due to climate change. 

“Over the past three years the number of people who go hungry in the world has increased by almost a fifth,” Mr Grossi said in his statement to the Board, which is meeting at the IAEA’s Vienna headquarters from 22­-24 November. The IAEA and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) have joined forces in response to this challenge. Mr Grossi and FAO Director General Qu Dongyu  launched Atoms4Food at the World Food Forum last month in Rome. The joint initiative aims to increase global food security and tackle growing hunger through the use of nuclear techniques………..

COP28

Looking ahead to the 28th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Dubai next month, Mr Grossi noted the growing global momentum on nuclear energy. “For the first time in the history of COP, nuclear countries will be able to say ‘yes, we are here, yes nuclear energy is part of the solution for this global climate crisis that we have’.”

The IAEA will showcase initiatives such as Atoms4NetZero and Atoms4Food at COP28 as well as other aspects of its work in helping the world monitor, mitigate and adapt to climate change.

November 11, 2024 Posted by | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Poodles and puppet masters – Mutual Defence Agreement puts USA in charge of UK military policy

The Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) of 1958 effectively ensures that the UK remains a nuclear weapon power by allowing the US to provide it with nuclear materials, including uranium and plutonium, nuclear weapons components, and submarine reactors. It also permits the sharing of staff and know-how between the two countries. 

There will be no dispute mechanisms allowed. No parliamentary scrutiny. And it will not be subject to approval by the US congress.” 

The Mutual Defence Agreement now permanently ties British nuclear weapon dependency to the United States, writes Linda Pentz Gunter

Remember the pet poodle that used to belong to US President George W. Bush? “I must correct you,” I hear you say. It was Scottish terriers that W had, not poodles.

Yes, but I refer here not to Barney and Beazley but to Bush’s third dutiful dog, Blair, as in Tony Blair, the contemporaneous British prime minister, who was routinely featured in cartoons as the compliant canine — specifically a poodle — glued to W’s side.

“I will be with you, whatever,” Blair had written to Bush in a confidential note eight months before the ill-fated invasion of Iraq, launched on the basis of exaggerated and downright false information.That declaration and other professions of poodlish loyalty, were revealed in the 2016 report issued by the Chilcot Commission examining events around the ensuing Iraq war.

“I express more sorrow, regret, and apology than you can ever believe,” was Blair’s response to the report’s findings. Based on his activities since then —which include serving as a well-paid advisor to corporate financial institutions, charging speaking fees as high as $300,000 a pop, and amassing a net worth of at least $60 million — no, we won’t ever believe it.

Perhaps Sir Keir Starmer, whose popularity continues to plummet, is also eagerly awaiting such post-prime ministerial plentitude. At least then, he will be able to pay for his own suitable suits. 

But after winning the UK general election in July and duly ascending to US poodlehood, Starmer knew he needed to quickly mark some territory before the departure of the gray-muzzled mutt then occupying both the dog house and the White House.

In order to ensure that the so-called special relationship — the canine cordiale — between the UK and the US remained intact, Starmer orchestrated a fundamental change to a key joint defense policy, cunningly by-passing parliamentary oversight.

The Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) of 1958 effectively ensures that the UK remains a nuclear weapon power by allowing the US to provide it with nuclear materials, including uranium and plutonium, nuclear weapons components, and submarine reactors. It also permits the sharing of staff and know-how between the two countries. 

Thus far, a section of the MDA has required renewal by the UK parliament every ten years. Those key clauses were due to expire this December.

Britain is in possession of four Vanguard class attack submarines armed with American-made Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles carrying UK-made warheads. As long time British national security correspondent, Richard Norton-Tayor, explained in Declassified: “The MDA enables the US to provide Britain with nuclear weapons materials and know-how without which Trident would not be able to function.” It also makes the program affordable for UK coffers.

In a briefing put out by the British nuclear watchdog group, Nuclear Information Service, the MDA is described as “the treaty that governs the relationship between the nuclear weapons programmes of the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US), which is unique amongst nuclear armed states for the level of dependency and technical integration involved.”

Now the MDA will endure in perpetuity. That’s because the Starmer government skillfully avoided a vote on the lifting of the sunset clause by first introducing its amendment during parliamentary recess, thus guaranteeing six weeks of inaction, then setting the expiry deadline for October 23 during which politicians from both parties were consumed with party conferences and budget issues. 

Consequently, the key amendments to the MDA slipped through without debate.

As NIS’s David Cullen summed it up, “The idea is to put this beyond democratic accountability in perpetuity.”

Specifically, the amended treaty contains three important clauses that leash the nuclear poodle tightly to its American owner. As reported in a debate in the British House of Lords, which did discuss the MDA renewal, can choose to oppose any changes, but has no actual jurisdiction over it, these are:

  • Article 4 which makes the provisions on naval nuclear propulsion cooperation reciprocal and allows the UK to transfer technology to, and share information with, the US.
  • Article 5 which removes the expiry provisions that relate to article III bis and allows for the MDA, as a whole, to remain in force on an “enduring basis”. As such, the agreement will not require renewal every ten years.
  • Article 13 adds new final provisions to the agreement that will ensure that information, material or equipment shared or transferred under the MDA will continue to be protected should the agreement be terminated by either party in the future.

What this means in real terms, explained NIS’s Cullen at a recent conference held in London by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, is that Rolls Royce parts “can be used in the next generation of US nuclear submarines. There will be no dispute mechanisms allowed. No parliamentary scrutiny. And it will not be subject to approval by the US congress.” 

The amendment also increases the already considerable secrecy shrouding the precise language in the MDA. “Efforts to scrutinise this relationship are regularly deflected by the government under the guise of national security,” said outgoing CND general secretary, Kate Hudson, in a statement.

According to the NIS report, “no information abut plutonium transfers after March 1999 or transfers of HEU [highly enriched uranium] and tritium outside the three barter exchanges has been made public, and the MOD [Ministry of Defence] has rejected Freedom of Information Requests for information about more recent transfers.”

Likewise, “there is little information in the public domain about the quantity and nature of transfers of non-nuclear components under the MDA,” says NIS.

“This ‘special relationship’ tethers British military and foreign policy to Washington – and makes redundant the claim that Britain has an independent nuclear weapons system,” Hudson added. “Without US support, Britain would be unable to sustain its nuclear arsenal.”

But why the rush to do away with the renewal clause and preserve key terms of the agreement in aspic? The answer, it appears, was insurance, to make the treaty impervious to the bite of the orange attack dog then potentially poised to return to the White House. This was necessary, the argument went, because Donald Trump had already shown a predilection under his previous presidential term for shredding nuclear treaties.

Trump withdrew the US from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia, a key instrument of global arms control, leaving Russia free to develop as many intermediate-range nuclear missiles as it wants and potentially triggering a new nuclear arms race.

Trump also tore up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — or Iran nuclear deal — which, while still in place, at least allowed for independent verification and oversight of Iran’s civil uranium enrichment activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Iran has already said it has now enriched uranium above 60%, well within the weapons-usable range if not yet weapons-grade.

In January, Trump will indeed be US president again. Starmer has decided to remain as his nuclear lapdog. The MDA may be impermeable to MAGA meddling. But how else Trump may choose to use his UK nuclear proxy should fill all of us with dread. 

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International. Her forthcoming book, Hot Stories. Reflections from a Radioactive World, will be published in the new year.

November 11, 2024 Posted by | politics international, UK, USA | Leave a comment

‘Horrific Reality’: Nearly 70% of UN-Verified Gaza Deaths Are Women and Children

The United Nations human rights office noted the “unprecedented levels of killings, death, injury, starvation, illness, disease, displacement, detention, and destruction” wrought by Israel’s 13-month onslaught.

Brett Wilkins, Nov 08, 2024, https://www.commondreams.org/news/how-many-women-and-children-have-died-in-gaza

Nearly 7 in 10 people killed by Israeli forces in Gaza during an earlier six-month period of the ongoing assault on the Palestinian enclave were women and children, the United Nations human rights office said Friday.

The U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) verified 8,119 of the more than 34,500 Palestinians killed by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bombs and bullets between November 2023 and April 2024. Among those killed were 3,588 children and 2,036 women ranging in age from newborns to nonagenarians. Minors under the age of 18 made up 44% of the victims in the analysis.

The OHCHR report noted the “unprecedented levels of killings, death, injury, starvation, illness, disease, displacement, detention, and destruction” wrought by Israel’s onslaught, as well as the “wanton disregard” by Israeli forces and Hamas of international humanitarian law.

The analysis also highlights “the Israeli government’s continuing unlawful failures to allow, facilitate, and ensure the entry of humanitarian aid, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and repeated mass displacement.”

“If committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population… these violations may constitute crimes against humanity,” OHCHR said. “And if committed with intent to destroy—in whole or in part—a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, they may also constitute genocide.”

South Africa is leading a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. On Thursday, Ireland became the latest of around 30 countries and regional blocs to announce its intent to intervene in the case on behalf of Palestine.

OHCHR found that 88% of the verified Palestinian fatalities from Israeli attacks on residential buildings were people killed in strikes that claimed at least five lives. In recent weeks, Israel’s renewed offensive in northern Gaza—which some experts believe is an attempt to ethnically cleanse the area by bombing and starving its people before forcibly expelling them to make way for Israeli recolonization—has wiped out a staggering number of civilians, including many women and children, in single strikes on homes, hospitals, and refugee camps.

“The high number of fatalities per attack was due to the IDF’s use of weapons with wide area effects in densely populated areas,” the analysis states, adding that some Palestinians may have been killed by errant projectiles launched by Hamas or other Gaza-based militants.

The new report also raises concerns over Isrsel’s forcible transfer of Palestinians, systematic attacks on medical workers, journalists, and reported use of white phosphorus munitions—which are banned in populated areas.

Israel has not yet responded to the OHCHR report but has previously said that it “will continue to act, as it always has done, according to international law.”


Since October 7, 2023, when Israeli forces launched their assault on the densely populated coastal enclave of 2.3 million people in response to the Hamas-led attack on Israel, the Gaza Ministry of Health and U.N. agencies say that more than 43,600 Palestinians have been killed and over 102,500 others wounded. More than 10,000 others are missing and believed dead and buried beneath the ruins of bombed homes and other structures.

Among those killed, say officials, are more than 18,000 children. Last month, the U.K.-based charity Oxfam International said that Israel’s yearlong assault on Gaza has been the deadliest year of conflict for women and children anywhere in the world over the past two decades.

The relentless death and destruction has caused the “complete psychological destruction” of Gaza’s youth, according to the charity Save the Children. The same has been said of many Gazans of all ages.

Last December, the U.N. Children’s Fund called Gaza “the world’s most dangerous place to be a child.” Earlier this year, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres for the first time added Israel to his so-called “List of Shame” of countries that kill and injure children during wars and other armed conflicts.

The ICJ—which is a U.N. body—has issued three provisionsal orders in the ongoing genocide case, including directives for Israel to prevent genocidal acts, stop its assault on Rafah, and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. Israel has been accused of flouting all three orders.

The trends and patterns of violations, and of applicable international law as clarified by the International Court of Justice, must inform the steps to be taken to end the current crisis,” U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said in a statement Friday.

“The violence must stop immediately, the hostages and those arbitrarily detained must be released, and we must focus on flooding Gaza with humanitarian aid,” he added.

November 11, 2024 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

Robert F Kennedy NOT a fan of nuclear power

RFK Jr. , Elon Musk talk nuclear energy, Nuclear Newswire, Fri, Jun 23, 2023

Environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the 69-year-old son of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy, ……. has been voicing his views on a wide range of issues in numerous interviews and podcasts.

Kennedy spoke with tech mogul Elon Musk in one recent online discussion, a roughly two-hour livestreamed event hosted by Musk on the Twitter Spaces platform on June 5 (and later posted on YouTube)…………..

Nuclear talk: The exchange between Kennedy and Musk on nuclear (beginning at about the 1:18:30 time stamp in the YouTube video) began with Musk saying, “Let me ask, on the energy subject, what are your views on nuclear power?”

Kennedy responded with skepticism: “What I’ve always said . . . is I’m all for nuclear power if you can make it safe and if you can make it economical, and right now . . . it’s not me saying it’s unsafe, [but] the insurance industry regards this nuclear power as so unsafe that they will not give them an insurance policy.” Kennedy brought up the Price-Anderson Act, which, according to him, “absolves [the nuclear industry] from liability,” and he bemoaned the tritiated water storage at Fukushima before briefly mentioning Chernobyl.

Kennedy also commented on some rough numbers about the cost per gigawatt of energy, stating that solar and wind were far cheaper and that “no utility in the world will build a nuclear power plant unless it’s fully subsidized by the public.” He called himself a “free-market absolutist” and stated, “I believe that we should take the cheapest form of energy, that we should have no subsidies, no externalities, and all the  companies should internalize their costs in the way that they internalize their profits. And that means the cost of pollution.”……………………………………………………………………  https://www.ans.org/news/article-5111/rfk-jr-elon-musk-talk-nuclear-energy/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGehSBleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHT-HGrinPRkoU3frJBw1evDGFPdSFyBmZk8vtuLemFBBCEQ-K9szuImj4A_aem_7d-lnVYB-3kkYaLuSsS9fQ

November 11, 2024 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

UN nuclear head to visit Iran for talks on country’s nuclear program as next Trump presidency looms

VIENNA (AP) — The head of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said Sunday he will travel to Iran in the coming days to hold talks regarding the country’s nuclear program. The visit comes amid wider tensions gripping the Mideast over the Israel-Hamas war and uncertainty over how U.S. President-elect Donald Trump will approach Iran after his inauguration in January.

Specifically, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mariano Grossi, will have high level meetings with the Iranian government and will hold technical discussions on all aspects related to the joint statement agreed with Iran in March 2023.

It is intended as a path forward for cooperation between the IAEA and Iran on how to expand inspections of the Islamic Republic’s rapidly advancing atomic program.

The 2023 statement included a pledge by Iran to resolve issues around sites where inspectors have questions about possible undeclared nuclear activity, and to allow the IAEA to “implement further appropriate verification and monitoring activities.”

The meetings in Tehran will build on Grossi’s discussions with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in September, a statement by the IAEA said.

“It is essential that we make substantive progress in the implementation of the joint statement agreed with Iran in March 2023,” Grossi said. “My visit to Tehran will be very important in that regard.”

Iran is rapidly advancing its atomic program and continues to increase its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels in defiance of international demands, according to recent reports by the IAEA.

Grossi, has warned that Tehran has enough uranium enriched to near-weapons-grade levels to make “several” nuclear bombs if it chose to do so. He has acknowledged the U.N. agency cannot guarantee that none of Iran’s centrifuges may have been peeled away for clandestine enrichment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

As Trump is to take office again in a few weeks, Iranians are divided on what his next presidency will bring. Some foresee an all-out war between Tehran and Washington, particularly as other conflicts rage in the region. Others hold out hope that America’s 47th president might engage in unexpected diplomacy as he did with North Korea.  https://apnews.com/article/iaea-grossi-iran-nuclear-negotiations-efa8ad94a3424135eb21261cccaf4641

November 11, 2024 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Climate talks to open in shadow of Trump victory

 World leaders are set to arrive at a big annual UN climate meeting hoping
to rein in rising global temperatures, which are making deadly events like
the recent floods in Spain far worse.

A key aim at this year’s meeting in
Azerbaijan is agreeing on how to get more cash to poorer countries to help
them curb their planet-warming gases and to help them cope with the growing
impacts of climate change.

But the US election victory of Donald Trump – a
known climate sceptic – as well as wars and cost of living crises are
proving a distraction, and some important leaders are not attending. Hosts
Azerbaijan are also under intense scrutiny over their human rights record,
as well as accusations they are using the meeting to line up fossil fuel
deals.

 BBC 8th Nov 2024 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k0zd2z53xo

November 11, 2024 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

Trump planning to withdraw from Paris climate agreement

Donald Trump is preparing to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement
when he returns to office in January. The president-elect’s team has
already prepared an executive order that would see the US leave the
international treaty, which commits countries to cutting their greenhouse
gas emissions.

More executive orders have been prepared for Mr Trump to
sign when he re-enters the White House that would shrink the size of
national monuments to allow more drilling and mining, The New York Times
reports. It is one of the first signs of how Mr Trump plans to undo the
legacy of Joe Biden, who has frequently touted his administration’s green
credentials and spent billions of dollars on renewable energy projects.

 Telegraph 9th Nov 2024,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/09/trump-planning-withdraw-from-paris-climate-agreement/

November 11, 2024 Posted by | climate change, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear debris retrieved from Fukushima reactor weighs 0.7 gram, (Just 880 tons to go)


 Japan Times 9th Nov 2024

The nuclear fuel debris collected on a trial basis from a crippled reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power station weighs 0.7 gram, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings said Friday.

The collected substance will be analyzed at four facilities, including the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, for research toward full-scale extraction of nuclear fuel debris from reactors at the Tepco plant in Fukushima Prefecture…………………..

The company plans to spend the next few days preparing for the transportation of the fuel debris to the four facilities.

The four facilities will share the nuclear fuel debris and analyze its components and hardness over several months to a year.

TEPCO collected the debris from the No. 2 reactor Thursday, about two months after the trial work was launched Sept. 10. It was the first time that fuel debris has been removed from a damaged reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 plant.

A total of about 880 tons of nuclear debris, a mixture of melted fuel and reactor parts, is believed to remain in the No. 1 to No. 3 reactors………
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/11/09/japan/fukushima-tepco-nuclear-debris/

November 11, 2024 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, wastes | Leave a comment

The Guardian view on Trump’s planet-wrecking plans: the UK government’s resolve will be tested

9 Nov 24, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/08/the-guardian-view-on-trumps-planet-wrecking-plans-the-uk-governments-resolve-will-be-tested

The new president’s disruptive policies will challenge Sir Keir Starmer’s green goals. But with strong leadership he could enhance Britain’s global influence.

Donald Trump’s electoral earthquake in America will complicate Sir Keir Starmer’s plans. Nowhere will the shock of Mr Trump’s win be more intensely felt than in environmental policy. His stance on climate – advocating a US exit from the Paris climate agreement and rallying behind “drill baby drill” – is more disruptive than constructive. This should concentrate Sir Keir’s mind as he heads to Cop29, the UN’s annual climate summit, in Baku, Azerbaijan.

At last year’s conference, world leaders agreed to “transition away” from fossil fuels in a just and orderly manner for the first time. Mr Trump, however, dismisses the climate crisis as a hoax. With this year likely to be the hottest on record, the devastating effects of global heating are undeniable, as extreme weather batters the planet. Mr Trump may ignore the facts, but the trail of climate-related chaos and destruction speaks for itself.

This ought to steel the prime minister’s resolve. Mr Trump’s plan to give the US an advantage in world trade through tariffs will complicate Labour’s goals of greening the economy, producing zero-carbon electricity, and cutting energy prices. The worst move Sir Keir could make would be to listen to rightwing voices arguing that if other nations are dropping green commitments, so should Britain. That would be a serious misstep, as leadership on climate not only reduces Britain’s carbon emissions but builds strategic alliances around the globe.

Mr Trump’s trade war threatens to disrupt supply chains, hike costs, jeopardise Britain’s green transition and stall its growth. His push for higher Nato defence spending could, in the UK, divert public funds from environmental initiatives. But this misses the point: Britain’s growth will be turbocharged by embracing green energy, leveraging its strengths in areas like offshore wind. Plus, most voters see a green shift as a path to lower energy costs and a stronger economy – a cause Sir Keir would be smart to champion.

The prime minister should double down on the plans of his energy secretary, Ed Miliband, rather than waver in the face of Trumpian pressure that prioritises short-term gains over a cleaner future. Mr Trump’s stance may also soften. He wants to gut Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and eliminate its clean tech subsidies. Yet most investment under the act has flowed to red and swing states in America’s south and midwest that voted for Mr Trump. Republican leaders in those states have vowed to protect these projects.

https://380a821190a37d89fff615ebb3836a1e.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

The profits of Elon Musk’s electric vehicle company Tesla would gain under Mr Trump’s deregulatory agenda. Mr Musk was $26bn richer the day after Mr Trump won. That reveals how the world’s richest person’s wealth is tied to political forces undermining green protections. Once a critic, Mr Musk now cosies up to Mr Trump. The quid pro quo is clear: Mr Trump, who once mocked electric cars, pandered to Mr Musk, telling a rally in August: “I’m for electric cars … because Elon [Musk] endorsed me.”

Mr Trump’s absence from future Cop meetings would be a mixed blessing. On one hand, he would hinder proceedings rather than help them. But having Mr Trump in the room might be preferable to him causing trouble from the outside. With some European leaders backing off green leadership due to domestic challenges, and others likely to follow Mr Trump’s lead, Sir Keir has a chance to step up on the world stage. This is a popular position at home. It would also be welcomed by his embattled counterparts on the continent – and beyond.

November 11, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Clean Energy Community Mobilizes as Trump Rises, Supporters Embrace Project 2025

Energy Mix 8th Nov 2024, Primary Author: Mitchell Beer

 As leaders, citizens, and climate and energy practitioners around the
world absorb the prospect of a second Donald Trump term in the White House,
two overlapping realities are beginning to emerge.

The next U.S. government will be determined to reverse and defeat efforts to get climate change under control and speed up the shift to a clean energy economy. And the
response is already taking shape—from industries and technologies that
are far more advanced and entrenched than they were eight years ago, and
from an international community that is determined to keep the transition
going, with or without the next Trump administration at the table.

How those two forces collide will largely determine how badly the U.S. falls
short of its 2030 emission reduction target under the Paris climate
agreement, and how much is left of the already-diminished prospect of
meeting the global goal of holding average global warming to 1.5°C…………. https://www.theenergymix.com/clean-energy-community-mobilizes-as-trump-rises-supporters-embrace-project-2025/

November 11, 2024 Posted by | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Micro-reactor developer optimistic about connecting South Wales project by 2027

08 Nov, 2024 By Tom Pashby

 The CEO of a micro nuclear reactor developer aiming to build in Wales this
decade has told NCE he is confident that grid connection reforms will help
keep his company’s ambitious plans on schedule.

Last Energy is a developer of micro-reactors, which fall within the overall category of
small modular reactors (SMRs). The firm is hoping to build and commission
four 20MW reactors in South Wales by 2027.

Details of its Prosiect Egni Glan Llynfi project in Bridgend County were released last month and raised eyebrows. Last Energy calls it, in English, the Llynfi Clean Energy Project
and is proposed on the site of the former coal-fired Llynfi Power Station
which was in operation from 1951 to 1977.

The SMR designs in Great British
Nuclear’s competition are subject to a generic design assessment (GDA) by
regulators of the UK nuclear sector. This allows the regulators to assess
the safety, security, safeguards and environmental aspects of new reactor
designs before site-specific proposals are brought forward.

Jenner said Last Energy is not going through the generic design assessment approach. He
said the ONR “stated that that’s not absolutely essential”. “It’s
one route you can take. We are going straight to the site licensing
route,” he said. “We are linking our project and our design straight to
our project in this case, is Llynfi in South Wales, so you go through the
same rigor, but it’s linked to a site.

” Even with all the benefits for
rapid deployment, the 2027 commission date seems ambitious. Jenner said
Last Energy had not commenced any works at the site yet. “When we expect
to is something that we are still working through the timeline on in our
discussions with the ONR (Office for Nuclear Regulation),” he said.

 New Civil Engineer 8th Nov 2024,
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/interview-micro-reactor-developer-optimistic-about-connecting-south-wales-project-by-2027-08-11-2024/

November 11, 2024 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

How Trump’s second term could derail the clean energy transition

The Inflation Reduction Act might not be completely repealed, but plenty of other climate policies could be undone — and fossil fuels could be unleashed.

Project 2025, the policy platform created by right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, calls for restructuring federal agencies — including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Interior — in ways that would restrict or end their roles in promoting clean energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions


 Canary Media, By Jeff St. John, 6 November 2024, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/politics/how-trumps-second-term-could-derail-the-clean-energy-transition

The Biden administration has enacted the most consequential federal clean energy and climate policy in U.S. history, giving the nation a fighting chance at reducing greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to deal with the climate crisis. Former President Donald Trump, who has won the 2024 presidential election, has pledged to undo that work.

Though Trump’s executive powers will allow him to slow the energy transition in a number of ways, the extent to which he rolls back Biden’s clean energy accomplishments will be dictated in part by whether Republicans retain control of the House of Representatives. The GOP flipped the U.S. Senate, but votes are still being counted in key House races as of Wednesday morning.

Here’s what clean energy and climate experts say is most likely to be lost under a second Trump administration — and what might survive.

What Trump has said about energy

Trump’s rhetoric presages a worst-case future. He has called climate change a hoax and the Biden administration’s climate policies a ​“green new scam.” He has said he wants to repeal the landmark Inflation Reduction Act and halt the law’s hundreds of billions of dollars of tax credits, grants, and other federal incentives for clean energy, electric vehicles, and other low-carbon technologies.

Trump has also made ​“drill, baby, drill” a call-and-response line at his rallies, pledging to undo any restraints on production and use of the fossil fuels driving climate change. U.S. oil and gas production is already at a record high under the Biden administration.

“He has pledged to do the bidding for Big Oil on day one,” Andrew Reagan, executive director of Clean Energy for America, said during a recent webinar.

“Oil and gas lobbyists are drafting executive orders for him to sign on day one,” Reagan added, citing news reports of plans from oil industry groups to roll back key Biden administration regulations and executive orders.

A Trump administration would be all but certain to reverse key Environmental Protection Agency regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, and the oil and gas industry, all of which analysts say are necessary to meet the country’s climate commitments. It’s also almost sure to lift the Biden administration’s pause on federal permitting of fossil-gas export facilities.

Trump has also promised to withdraw the U.S. from international climate agreements (again), including the Paris agreement aimed at limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

“We know that Trump would take us out of the Paris agreement, and that would be the last time his administration uttered the word ​‘climate,’” Catherine Wolfram, an economist at the MIT Sloan School of Management and former deputy assistant secretary for climate and energy economics in the Biden administration’s Treasury Department, told Canary Media. ​“Losing that global leadership would be one of the greatest losses of a Trump presidency.”

What will happen to the Inflation Reduction Act? 

Trump won’t have the power to enact all of his promises on his own. Some of the decisions must be made by Congress, including any effort to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act or to claw back unspent funds from that law or the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.

Complete repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act would be highly disruptive to a clean energy sector that has seen planned investment grow to roughly $500 billion since the law was passed in mid-2022.

It would also undermine clean energy job growth, which has increased at roughly twice the pace of U.S. employment overall. A recent survey of clean energy companies found that a repeal of the law would be expected to lead to half of them losing business or revenue, roughly one-quarter losing projects or contracts, about one-fifth laying off workers, and about one in 10 going out of business.

“We found that especially rural areas and smaller rural communities would experience the largest negative impacts of repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act,” Shara Mohtadi, co-founder of S2 Strategies, said in an October webinar presenting the survey data. ​“These are the regions of the country that have seen the biggest uptake in the economic benefits and the manufacturing jobs coming from other countries into the United States.”

Indeed, most of the investment and job growth the IRA has spurred has taken place in states and congressional districts represented by Republicans.

These on-the-ground realities have driven expectations that large swaths of the law’s tax credits would be likely to survive even with Republican control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Trump would face pushback within his own party to undoing the law entirely.

In an August letter to current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), 18 House Republicans warned against repealing the clean energy and manufacturing tax credits created by the Inflation Reduction Act, which have ​“spurred innovation, incentivized investment, and created good jobs in many parts of the country — including many districts represented by members of our conference.”

The Biden administration has enacted the most consequential federal clean energy and climate policy in U.S. history, giving the nation a fighting chance at reducing greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to deal with the climate crisis. Former President Donald Trump, who has won the 2024 presidential election, has pledged to undo that work.

Though Trump’s executive powers will allow him to slow the energy transition in a number of ways, the extent to which he rolls back Biden’s clean energy accomplishments will be dictated in part by whether Republicans retain control of the House of Representatives. The GOP flipped the U.S. Senate, but votes are still being counted in key House races as of Wednesday morning.

Here’s what clean energy and climate experts say is most likely to be lost under a second Trump administration — and what might survive.

What Trump has said about energy

Trump’s rhetoric presages a worst-case future. He has called climate change a hoax and the Biden administration’s climate policies a ​“green new scam.” He has said he wants to repeal the landmark Inflation Reduction Act and halt the law’s hundreds of billions of dollars of tax credits, grants, and other federal incentives for clean energy, electric vehicles, and other low-carbon technologies.

Trump has also made ​“drill, baby, drill” a call-and-response line at his rallies, pledging to undo any restraints on production and use of the fossil fuels driving climate change. U.S. oil and gas production is already at a record high under the Biden administration.

“He has pledged to do the bidding for Big Oil on day one,” Andrew Reagan, executive director of Clean Energy for America, said during a recent webinar.

“Oil and gas lobbyists are drafting executive orders for him to sign on day one,” Reagan added, citing news reports of plans from oil industry groups to roll back key Biden administration regulations and executive orders.

A Trump administration would be all but certain to reverse key Environmental Protection Agency regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, and the oil and gas industry, all of which analysts say are necessary to meet the country’s climate commitments. It’s also almost sure to lift the Biden administration’s pause on federal permitting of fossil-gas export facilities.

Trump has also promised to withdraw the U.S. from international climate agreements (again), including the Paris agreement aimed at limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

“We know that Trump would take us out of the Paris agreement, and that would be the last time his administration uttered the word ​‘climate,’” Catherine Wolfram, an economist at the MIT Sloan School of Management and former deputy assistant secretary for climate and energy economics in the Biden administration’s Treasury Department, told Canary Media. ​“Losing that global leadership would be one of the greatest losses of a Trump presidency.”

What will happen to the Inflation Reduction Act? 

Trump won’t have the power to enact all of his promises on his own. Some of the decisions must be made by Congress, including any effort to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act or to claw back unspent funds from that law or the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.

Complete repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act would be highly disruptive to a clean energy sector that has seen planned investment grow to roughly $500 billion since the law was passed in mid-2022.

It would also undermine clean energy job growth, which has increased at roughly twice the pace of U.S. employment overall. A recent survey of clean energy companies found that a repeal of the law would be expected to lead to half of them losing business or revenue, roughly one-quarter losing projects or contracts, about one-fifth laying off workers, and about one in 10 going out of business.

“We found that especially rural areas and smaller rural communities would experience the largest negative impacts of repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act,” Shara Mohtadi, co-founder of S2 Strategies, said in an October webinar presenting the survey data. ​“These are the regions of the country that have seen the biggest uptake in the economic benefits and the manufacturing jobs coming from other countries into the United States.”

Indeed, most of the investment and job growth the IRA has spurred has taken place in states and congressional districts represented by Republicans.

These on-the-ground realities have driven expectations that large swaths of the law’s tax credits would be likely to survive even with Republican control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Trump would face pushback within his own party to undoing the law entirely.

In an August letter to current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), 18 House Republicans warned against repealing the clean energy and manufacturing tax credits created by the Inflation Reduction Act, which have ​“spurred innovation, incentivized investment, and created good jobs in many parts of the country — including many districts represented by members of our conference.”

“Prematurely repealing energy tax credits, particularly those which were used to justify investments that already broke ground, would undermine private investments and stop development that is already ongoing,” the 18 House Republicans wrote. ​“A full repeal would create a worst-case scenario where we would have spent billions of taxpayer dollars and received next to nothing in return.”

Republicans would need a roughly 20-seat majority to overcome opposition from these party members opposed to a full repeal, said Harry Godfrey, head of the federal investment and manufacturing working group of trade group Advanced Energy United.

“I don’t envision Republicans holding the House with 20-plus seats,” he said.

Godfrey also doubted that a Trump administration would be eager to undermine the domestic manufacturing boom that the law’s tax credits have spurred. He noted that at the October 1 vice-presidential debate, J.D. Vance, the Republican Ohio senator and Trump’s running mate, emphasized the need for the U.S. to ​“consolidate American dominance” in key energy sectors and industries now dominated by China.

While Vance went on to falsely accuse the Biden administration of failing to bolster U.S. industries against China, the goal of emphasizing domestic competitiveness could lead Republicans to avoid undermining progress in that direction, he suggested.


But such logic may not prevail, MIT’s Wolfram said. ​“If we’re building a lot of battery factories and solar plants in red congressional districts, hopefully that will insulate IRA from repeal,” she said. ​“But I fear there’s a risk that Republicans would want to destroy Biden’s signature climate achievement, even if it’s against their economic interests.”

The GOP could also decide it would rather steer money earmarked to clean energy to other priorities — like tax cuts.

Wolfram co-authored a recent paper that suggested Republicans might seek to get rid of tax credits and other federal climate spending in an attempt to reduce the federal deficit because the deficit would be expected to balloon if they extend the tax cuts enacted by Congress during the first Trump administration, which are set to expire at the end of 2025.

What can Trump do on his own? 

While Congress would need to take action to fully repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, a Trump administration can make moves on its own to halt or at least complicate the provision of the IRA’s tax credits, Godfrey said, such as instructing the Treasury Department to amend, suspend, or delay implementation of the rules that determine how tax credits are calculated and disbursed.

“There is space for an administration that wants to throw sand in the gears to come in and say, ​‘We’re suspending the rule, or we’re suspending the notice of proposed rulemaking,’” Godfrey said. ​“People should be concerned about a Trump administration without complete control of Congress to use administrative powers to readjust those rules in a way that will be detrimental to their implementation.”

Beyond obstructing the Inflation Reduction Act rollout, other decisions fall squarely within the authority of the executive branch — and a future Trump administration has a blueprint to follow on those fronts.

Project 2025, the policy platform created by right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, calls for restructuring federal agencies — including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Interior — in ways that would restrict or end their roles in promoting clean energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Trump has disavowed any knowledge of or support for Project 2025, but CNN has reported that at least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration were involved in the project, including six of his former Cabinet secretaries.

Among the proposals in Project 2025: reversing a landmark 2009 finding from the EPA that carbon dioxide emissions are a threat to human health, which is currently the basis for federal regulations on greenhouse gases. The platform also calls for EPA to reconsider rules limiting tailpipe emissions from road vehicles and withdraw California’s long-held option to set its own vehicle standards — an ability that has allowed it and more than a dozen other states to adopt more stringent emissions rules for cars, trucks, and buses than the federal government.

Project 2025 would also have the Interior Department prioritize fossil-fuel extraction on federal lands and have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission end consideration of environmental impacts of new fossil-gas pipelines. And the blueprint calls for key programs within the Department of Energy to be ​“eliminated or reformed,” including the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Office of State and Community Energy Programs, Grid Deployment Office, and the ARPA-E advanced energy R&D program.

The $400 billion pool of loan authority under the DOE’s Loan Programs Office is also under threat. That program has already made tens of billions of dollars available to solar projects, battery factories, nuclear power plants, clean hydrogen production sites, critical-minerals mining, processing, and recycling, and a host of other climate-related projects. Project 2025 calls for eliminating the office, which under former President Obama gave crucial early loans to Tesla. News reports indicate some prospective Trump administration officials want to redirect the loan program toward fossil fuel projects instead.

A full-scale implementation of the Project 2025 agenda would harm not just U.S. clean energy and climate-related investments and economic growth, but also broader job growth and energy costs, according to an August report from think tank Energy Innovation. The analysis found that the policies called for in the blueprint would result in $320 billion in annual GDP losses, 1.7 million clean energy jobs lost, $32 billion in higher household energy costs, and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions of roughly 1 billion metric tons by 2030 compared to a scenario in which current policies were kept in place.

Godfrey expressed hope that a Trump administration would forgo the more drastic parts of Project 2025, such as eliminating ​“whole arms of DOE” that support industries such as critical-minerals mining, processing, and recycling, which are seen as crucial to U.S. competitiveness against China

Yet he also warned that companies that have won promises of loans and grants from agencies under the Biden administration but haven’t yet received them could face the threat of clawback. ​“If you have an executed agreement in place, you should be OK. Anything short of that, I think there’s some risk there,” he said.

All of these threats run the risk not only of delaying urgent action on climate change, but of causing economic hardship in a world in which carbon-free energy is clearly beating fossil fuels on purely economic terms, said Tom Steyer, the billionaire founder of Farallon Capital Management who has backed a variety of climatetech investments and political and philanthropic causes.

“The only political party on the globe that still is denying that climate change has an impact economically and environmentally is the Republican Party,” Steyer told Canary Media earlier this year. ​“The cost of wind and solar and batteries is going to drop precipitously. The advantage they have in cost is only going to get bigger.”

“For the U.S. to try to give up the future and go back to the 1950s — an internal-combustion-engine, fossil-fuel-driven world — it destroys jobs in the United States, destroys industries in the United States, and drives up inflation,” he said.

Gina McCarthy, former national climate advisor in the Biden administration and head of the EPA under the Obama administration, was defiant in a statement Wednesday morning.

“No matter what Trump may say, the shift to clean energy is unstoppable and our country is not turning back,” McCarthy wrote. ​“Our coalition is bigger, more bipartisan, better organized, and fully prepared to deliver climate solutions, boost local economies, and drive climate ambition. We cannot and will not let Trump stand in the way of giving our kids and grandkids the freedom to grow up in safer and healthier communities.”

November 10, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »