nuclear-news

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

Japan struggles to find nuclear waste disposal site

Japan is facing difficulties selecting a final disposal site for high-level radioactive waste left from spent fuel at nuclear power plants across the nation.


 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/10/27/japan/nuclear-waste-site-struggles/

First-stage surveys to find locations suited to host an underground storage facility have been conducted in three municipalities — two in Hokkaido and one in Saga Prefecture — despite continuing anxieties among local residents.

With nuclear power plants in Japan gradually going back online, there remains no clear timeline for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, keeping the government’s goal of a nuclear fuel cycle out of reach.

High-level radioactive waste, which is vitrified after uranium and plutonium are extracted from spent fuel for reuse, presents a significant challenge. Japan’s plan for final disposal involves burying the waste more than 300 meters underground for tens of thousands of years, allowing its radioactivity to diminish over time.

Nuclear power plants in Japan, operating without a designated final dump site for waste, are often criticized for being like “a condominium building without a toilet.”

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan, or NUMO, responsible for managing final disposal, began inviting municipalities to host surveys for potential dump sites in 2002. To date, however, no location has been selected.

The research process for selecting a final repository site consists of three stages: a literature survey, a drilling survey, and a detailed investigation using an underground facility. Local governments that host such surveys receive subsidies from the central government.

Literature surveys, which involve reviewing geological maps and historical earthquake records, began in the town of Suttsu and the village of Kamoenai in Hokkaido in 2020, and in the town of Genkai, Saga Prefecture, in 2024. No other municipality has agreed to participate in site selection research, however.

The first-stage surveys concluded that all of Suttsu and most of Kamoenai are suitable for moving forward to the drilling survey phase. NUMO plans to release a report as early as this fall and hold briefing sessions for local residents.


Still, Hokkaido Gov. Naomichi Suzuki has expressed opposition to the drilling surveys, and Saga Gov. Yoshinori Yamaguchi has also voiced objections to conducting such a survey in Genkai. The consent of the prefectural governor is required to proceed with second-stage surveys.

The central government has emphasized its responsibility in its basic policies on the final disposal of nuclear waste and aims to conduct surveys in about 10 additional locations, following international precedents.


In the past, the town of Toyo in Kochi Prefecture and the city of Tsushima in Nagasaki Prefecture considered hosting surveys but ultimately declined. Central government representatives now plan to visit over 100 local governments, increasing opportunities to explain the process to residents.

Japan, which has relied on nuclear power for over half a century, currently holds around 19,000 tons of spent fuel at its nuclear power plants and other facilities, using about 80% of its total storage capacity.

As a resource-scarce nation, Japan has been promoting a nuclear fuel cycle, by which spent fuel is reprocessed and recycled for continued use in power generation. The reprocessing plant that is key to this cycle has yet to be completed, however.

Japan Nuclear Fuel started construction of the country’s first commercial reprocessing facility in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, in 1993, but its completion has been delayed 27 times.

In September, an interim storage facility in the city of Mutsu, Aomori Prefecture, took delivery of the first batch of spent fuel from Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings’ Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant in Niigata Prefecture. This facility, not on the premises of any nuclear power plant site, will store the fuel for up to 50 years before it undergoes reprocessing.

Many local residents see the receipt of spent fuel as premature, given the unfinished reprocessing plant and the lack of a final disposal solution. They worry that storage at the facility may become permanent rather than temporary.

The central government has decided to rebuild nuclear power plants and extend their operational periods. This marks a reversal of the previous policy, which aimed to reduce reliance on nuclear energy following the March 2011 accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima No. 1 plant, caused by severe damage from the earthquake and tsunami the same month.

An official from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said that “as we have used nuclear power plants, we cannot avoid” the issue of final nuclear waste disposal.

Hideki Masui, president of Japan Atomic Industry Forum, emphasized the need for “a national debate” as Japan struggles to conduct surveys in additional areas for potential disposal sites, placing disproportionate burdens on certain regions.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Japan, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs) believe budget is opportunity to lobby Ministers to ditch Sizewell C

NFLAs believe budget is opportunity to lobby Ministers to ditch Sizewell C

Chancellor Rachel Reeves will be unveiling the contents of her red box when making her Autumn Statement on Wednesday and the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities believes this offers an opportunity to lobby Labour to ditch Sizewell C – if opponents act now.

Though intended to be constructed by French owned nuclear operator EDF Energy, the outgoing Conservative Government squandered £2.5 billion of taxpayers money on preparatory work, and in August 2024, Labour compounded the calumny by announcing a new subsidy scheme that could make up to a further £5.5 billion in public money available to support this unwanted white elephant. Consequently, the project is now 76%-owned by the British Government at a time when Ministers and their advisors still desperately chase private sector investors to back this Suffolk turkey.

There are still many unknowns about the eventual overall cost of Sizewell C. In contrast to the amazing reductions achieved in recent years in the cost of generating electricity through renewables, the delivery cost of nuclear continues to rise. Given that Sizewell C’s predecessor, the identical Hinkley Point C, is being delivered hugely over budget with some estimates that the cost in real terms will be up to £46 billion, it is wholly incredible that this project can be delivered for the £20 billion that Ministers claim.

And Sizewell C presents additional costly challenges. As a consequence of climate change, the coastal location will be increasingly threatened by inundation from an encroaching sea, requiring significant expenditure on coastal defences. Further Suffolk is ‘water stressed’ meaning that there will be increasing competition for fresh water from inhabitants or commercial operators, and Sizewell C has still to secure a guaranteed sustainable potable water supply for its planned 60 years of operation.

Given the circumstances it is unsurprising that few players amongst the financial markets have expressed any interest in taking a stake in the Sizewell doonboggle, and there is still considerable uncertainty when, or even if, the Financial Investment Decision will be made.

Sizewell C also represents a double whammy for electricity consumers. As taxpayers, we are expected to front up to £8 billion in funding, incidentally almost the same in total that Labour has dedicated to Great Britain Energy over the entirely of its five year term in office, but as electricity consumers we will also be expected to reimburse the construction costs through the imposition of an additional levy on bills, derisking the project for the profit-focussed operator. Unsurprisingly, the NFLA Secretary has described this Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model as the ROB for it represents daylight robbery.

The Labour Government has announced that they will establish a new ‘Office of Value for Money’ within the Treasury and the appointment of a Chair is expected imminently. Stop Sizewell C has launched a petition calling for that office holder to prioritise an examination of the financial liability that is Sizewell C.

Although initial feedback from the Treasury to campaigners had indicated that Sizewell C would definitely be examined by the new office holder, officials in recent correspondence have been more ambivalent and a recent written answer by Nuclear Minister Lord Hunt to a House of Lords parliamentary question was opaque and non-committal.

Stop Sizewell C are also asking supporters of their campaign to join them in writing to the Chancellor, Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Energy to cancel Sizewell C.

The NFLAs would urge opponents of Sizewell C to sign the petition:

October 30, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Reeves urged not to cut Sellafield funds amid concern at rise in ‘near misses’

GMB raises safety concerns amid rumours of budget cuts across sites and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

Guardian, Alex Lawson and Anna Isaac, 28 Oct 24

Rachel Reeves has been urged not to carry out mooted funding cuts for nuclear sites including Sellafield amid safety concerns, as it emerged that the number of incidents where workers narrowly avoided harm had increased at the Cumbrian site.

The GMB union has written to Reeves, the chancellor, before Wednesday’s budget to raise safety concerns after rumours emerged that the budget for the taxpayer-owned Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) could be reduced, which could result in cuts at nuclear sites including Sellafield and Dounreay in Scotland.

In the letter to Reeves, seen by the Guardian, union leaders warned that a safety incident at Sellafield, Europe’s most hazardous industrial site, would “have devastating consequences far beyond the immediate community”. The NDA had a budget of £4bn in the last financial year.

The warning came as recently released annual accounts for the NDA showed “near misses” at Sellafield had risen in the last financial year, and an “international nuclear event-scale” incident had occurred at the site, which is a vast dump for nuclear waste and also the world’s largest store of plutonium.


The NDA said there was an “inadequate response” during an incident in 2023 as some staff did not follow procedures when an emergency alarm unexpectedly sounded inside the site’s hazardous chemical separation area.

The report also said Sellafield, which employs 12,000 people, had received six enforcement letters from its regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and that in studying its safety record the “rate of significant near misses is higher across 2023-24”.

It found that the impact on employees from work injuries had “often been significant” even if many of the incidents had appeared innocuous.

In the letter, Denise Walker and Roger Denwood, of the GMB, wrote: “While operators and regulators work tirelessly to ensure safety, the inherent risks of the site mean that any lapse in safety standards could result in serious and far-reaching economic and ecological consequences.”

They said radioactive “materials must be safely managed to prevent leaks or accidental releases of radiation. The health risks of radiation exposure, including cancer and other serious illnesses, are well documented.”

They added: “Any reduction in funding would inevitably result in fewer resources for maintenance, monitoring, and emergency preparedness-heightening the risk of a serious incident.”

The Guardian’s Nuclear Leaks investigation in late 2023 revealed a string of cybersecurity problems at Sellafield, as well as issues with its safety and workplace culture. Last week the National Audit Office said the cost of decommissioning the site had risen to £136bn, with major projects running years behind schedule……………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/28/sellafield-work-accidents-reeves-budget

October 30, 2024 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Meltdown nightmares: silent spring for climate change

“Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change,” strips away the myth that nuclear energy solves climate change

By Choi Hee-jin, October. 29. 2024, Korea Times:  https://m-koreatimes-co-kr.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp?newsIdx=384891—

Asia is buzzing with the 2024 Nobel Prize announcements. The Nobel Prize in literature was awarded to a Korean author, Han Kang, and the Peace Prize to the Japanese organization Nihon Hidankyo, formed by Hibakusha in 1956 to improve support for victims and lobby governments to abolish nuclear weapons. Today, I would like to introduce a timely book that came out this summer on the topic of the Nobel Peace Prize.

In 1962, Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring,” a landmark book that ignited the modern environmental movement by exposing the hidden and devastating effects of widespread pesticide use. Her message raised public awareness about the harmful effects of DDT and led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. Consequently, it contributed to banning DDT in the United States in 1972 and internationally in 2004.

Like Carlson’s book, the recently released “Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change,” strips away the myth that nuclear energy solves climate change and calls our attention to nuclear power. Its authors are Doug Brugge, professor and chair of the Department of Public Health Sciences at the University of Connecticut, and Aaron Datesman, visiting professor at the University of Virginia and engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

Before delving into the book, some fundamental questions about climate change should be addressed. Is climate change real? Yes, it is happening. As temperatures continue to rise swiftly, the melting of glaciers and polar ice is becoming more pronounced, serving as a visible and reliable sign of climate change. What is the cause? There is much debate on this topic, but human activity — particularly our reliance on fossil fuels in built environments, cities, and infrastructure — is the main culprit. What is crucial in addressing climate change? Time. It depends on how quickly we switch from fossil fuels to other energy sources. Nuclear power, even in “highly developed” countries, takes a significant amount of time to implement as a solution.

Hidden Costs

Brugge and Datesman conclude that the effects of nuclear power may be more severe and longer lasting because some radioactive materials have such long half-lives, and nuclear accidents are so catastrophic. It exposes the hidden problems of the nuclear industry by looking at its impacts on people and the environment, with a focus on uranium mining, waste management and the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

Uranium mining disproportionately impacts Indigenous communities, leaving a legacy of pollution and health problems. The waste dilemma poses another challenge, with no permanent storage solution for high-level nuclear waste, potentially poisoning water, food chains and ecosystems for thousands of years.

The history of Fukushima and Chernobyl still haunts us and reminds us of the danger of nuclear accidents. The authors say even well-designed reactors are prone to failure due to human error, natural disaster or terrorism. These types of accidents would be a national security issue and would require massive long-term clean-up, and the communities affected would continue to live with the effects.

Economic realities of nuclear power

The economics of nuclear are also covered. Supporters point to the financial benefits of nuclear. But the book shows that the actual costs still need to be added in. Recent numbers bear this out: between 2010 and 2020, the cost of utility-scale solar and onshore wind fell 85 percent and 56 percent, respectively, while nuclear costs increased. The economics are shifting and making nuclear look less and less like a solution to climate change. The authors argue that renewable energy technologies offer a safer and more viable path to a decarbonized future.

A call for responsible energy choices

Nuclear power is being promoted as a solution in many countries and regions. Still, its inherent risks and unsolved problems mean there are better options for achieving net zero emissions and a carbon-free world. “Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in the Age of Climate Change” calls for global action to transition to more sustainable and equitable energy solutions. No one knowingly leaves a ticking time bomb in their house when there are safer alternatives.

In industrial history, miners would take small canaries deep into the earth, their delicate respiratory systems acting as an early warning system for toxic gases. A canary’s song, or its silence, could mean the difference between life and death for miners. While we continue to grapple with the ever-present dangers of invisible nuclear radiation and the consequences of its hazardous waste, we seem to treat future generations as unwitting canaries.

Perhaps the debate over nuclear power is outdated. It is essential to envision a completely new society with a carbon-free economy that ensures sustainable prosperity. We need to invest boldly in new alternatives and develop innovative technologies that harness nature’s limitless energy before it’s too late.

Choi Hee-jin is the author of “Future Cities” in The Routledge Handbook for Sustainable Cities and Landscapes in the Pacific Rim (2022), Salzburg Global Seminar Fellow (2023), and founder and CEO of RestFullness(restfullness.net), a platform for rest. She leads vocational formation and leadership sessions and coaches young leaders at METES Institute(metes.io).

October 30, 2024 Posted by | climate change, media | Leave a comment

South Bruce Municipality narrowly votes to host underground nuclear waste disposal site

Matthew McClearn, October 28, 2024, Globe and Mail,

Residents in Ontario’s Municipality of South Bruce narrowly voted in favor of hosting a nuclear waste disposal site in a referendum completed on Monday.

Unofficial results published Monday evening by Simply Voting, an online voting platform, reported that of the 3,130 votes case, 51.2% voted in favor, while 48.8% were opposed.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), a non-profit organization representing major nuclear power generation utilities, has been hunting since 2010 for a site to store spent fuel from nuclear power reactors. Known as a deep geological repository, or DGR, the facility would be built more than half a kilometer underground, at an estimated cost of $26 billion.

South Bruce, located more than 120 kilometres north of London and home to about 6,200 residents, is a rural, largely agricultural area of less than 500 square kilometers. It includes a few small communities including Mildmay, Formosa, Culross and Teeswater. The NWMO has secured more than 1,500 acres of land north of Teeswater for the project.

From the outset, the NWMO said it would build the facility only “in an area with informed and willing hosts,” which meant one municipality and one Indigenous group. South Bruce is one of two finalists to host the DGR, down from an original list of 22 communities that expressed interest. The NWMO said it will announce its final selection by Dec. 31st.

Under a hosting agreement the municipality signed earlier this year, South Bruce stands to receive $418-million over nearly a century and a half if selected. The municipality agreed not to do anything to oppose or halt the project, and at the NWMO’s request will communicate its support. The NWMO can modify the project in several respects, including changing the sorts of waste it will store there. The facility would be constructed between 2036 and 2042, ns would then receive, process and store nuclear waste for another half-century.

South Bruce’s byelection, which began last week, asked residents to vote by phone or Internet on whether they were in favor of hosting the DGR. Simply Voting reported turnout of 69.3%, substantially above the 50% minimum required to make the outcome binding under Ontario’s Municipal Elections Act.

The other community in the running is Ignace, Ont., a town of 1,200 more than 200 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay. Its council voted to accept the DGR in July, and would receive $170-million under its own hosting agreement. (The move was supported by 77% of registered voters who participated in a non-binding online poll.) That location, known as the Revell site, is about 40 km west of the town.

The NWMO also seeks approval from two Indigenous communities: The Saugeen Ojibway Nation for the South Bruce site, and the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation for the Revell site. Neither First Nation has yet signaled consent, but the NWMO spokesperson Craig MacBride said the organization is “in active discussions” with both.

“The NWMO still anticipates selecting a site by the end of this year,” he wrote in an e-mailed response to questions.

As of June 2023, Canada had accumulated 3.3 million spent fuel bundles, each the size of a fire log. They’re currently stored at nuclear power plants in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, and roughly 90,000 new ones are added each year. Upon removal from a reactor, they’re highly radioactive and must be stored in pools of water for about a decade; afterward, they’re moved to storage containers made from reinforced concrete and lined with half-inch steel plate.

The South Bruce referendum follows a campaign that lasted a dozen years and produced rifts within the community.

Protect Our Waterways, a local group opposed to the DGR from the outset, had demanded a referendum. Some DGR supporters opposed putting the matter to a public vote, preferring to leave the decision to elected officials. Municipal officials pointed to the area’s declining economy and population, and emphasized the benefits brought by the NWMO’s spending. Supporters and opponents often accused each other of producing misinformation………………………………………………………….. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-south-bruce-municipality-narrowly-votes-to-host-underground-nuclear/#:~:text=Its%20council%20voted%20to%20accept,km%20west%20of%20the%20town.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Lepreau nuclear headaches could add up to an extra $150M

NB Power says it won’t know the true costs until plant comes back online in December after an eight-month shutdown

John Chilibeck  •  Local Journalism Initiative reporter, Oct 28, 2024 Journal: https://tj.news/new-brunswick/lepreau-headaches-could-add-up-to-an-extra-150m

NB Power expects the troubled Point Lepreau nuclear plant to be back up and running in December, about 140 days after serious problems were first discovered.

The repairs and replacing the lost electricity could cost New Brunswick ratepayers $150 million, based on testimony provided earlier this year by senior executives at the public utility.

In a news release Monday, NB Power said the total costs won’t be known until the plant near Saint John is back in operation. The utility is also considering making an insurance claim to protect the public and businesses from punishing costs.

“Our team has been working diligently, with the support of national and international experts, to assess and address the situation,” stated spokesperson Dominique Couture in the release. “This has been a very complex task, and NB Power left no stone unturned in understanding the problem and the repair options.”

During a summer rate hearing before the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board, Craig Church, a chief modeler for the public utility, told the quasi-judicial body that replacing the 660 megawatts of energy lost at the Candu reactor, one of the most important plants in its generating system, costs on average $900,000 a day.

The repair work and replacement power did not figure into rate hearings in which NB Power asked for the highest hikes to electrical rates in generations – close to 20 per cent over two years. A decision is still pending with the board.

During those summer hearings, NB Power estimated the repair work would cost $20 million and replacing energy $51 million, for a total of $71 million.

But that was an estimate only up to Sept. 1, roughly 48 days of the unplanned outage. Extending that timeline to Dec. 1 would add another 91 days, just when temperatures plunge and electrical costs go up.

The $900,000 a day estimate was an average only, suggesting the costs could escalate to at least $150 million.

The Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station has been offline since April 6, when NB Power undertook a planned, 100-day maintenance outage.

But when getting ready for starting the plant back up in July, workers identified a critical issue within the main generator, located on the non-nuclear side of the plant.


It turns out it wasn’t even in an area that was part of the maintenance work.

The culprit was a damaged stator bar in the generator, one of the long devices inside the big round machine and a stationary part of the rotor.

The experts began probing further and after testing all 144 bars, found five others showing signs of serious deterioration.

“An independent investigation has determined that the cause of this issue is a manufacturer’s defect that occurred during the maintenance of the generator in 2010,” NB Power stated. “We made the decision to repair all six bars while the station is offline to ensure continued safe operations and prevent potential issues in the future.”

It wasn’t a simple job. To access the stator bars, workers had to meticulously disassemble part of the generator assembly, including the removal of the machine’s rotor.

“The stator bars and other internal components are delicate and strict manufacturer’s precautionary measures must be followed,” Couture wrote. “We are pleased to report that repairs have been completed on all six stator bars and that the generator reassembly is underway. This involves several verification steps and thorough testing to ensure that all components are precisely aligned and secured.”

NB Power said once the components are ready, in the coming weeks, it will begin start-up activities at the massive plant, including equipment checks and testing protocol. The utility anticipates a full return to service in December. That would mean the unplanned outaged lasted about 140 days, with Lepreau offline for a total of about eight months.

The true costs won’t be released until the plant is back in service, NB Power stated. Couture said the utility is examining every option to reduce costs for its customers, including looking at an insurance claim.

“We are pleased that the station will be back online for the winter heating season to ensure New Brunswickers have the energy they need when they need it,” Couture wrote. “We are committed to safety and operational excellence and will continue to keep the public informed.”

October 30, 2024 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

New Brunswick’s nuclear plant’s ongoing troubles an early threat to Holt government finances

N.B. Power’s Point Lepreau generating station has been offline since April with no definite return date

Robert Jones · CBC News ·  Oct 28, 2024

More than 200 days after going offline for what was supposed to be a 98-day maintenance shutdown the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station remains idle with no definite word on when it will be able to generate electricity again.

In an email last week  the utility declined to commit to a previously estimated mid-November restart date and will say only that it has a “goal” of completing repairs on the station’s troubled generator sometime in November.

However, reconnecting to New Brunswick’s electrical grid following repairs will take an uncertain amount of additional time, according to N.B. Power spokesperson Dominique Couture.

“The next steps will be to proceed with start-up activities including Station equipment checks and testing protocol,”  Couture said in an email to CBC News about what happens when repairs are complete.

“The timeline for full return to service will be determined by how these activities progress.”

That is a potential problem for the incoming government of Susan Holt, whose Liberal Party won the New Brunswick election a week ago.

Cost climbing daily

Bills for the latest troubles afflicting the nuclear plant passed $100 million in late September and are climbing at a rate of $1 million a day or more with some uncertainty over who will pay.

An upcoming decision of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board will rule on a number of matters concerning N.B. Power and the rates it charges, including whether Lepreau breakdown costs should continue to be paid by N.B. Power customers or be shifted to the utility and its owner — the provincial government.

Hearings conducted by the EUB into those matters ended nine weeks ago, but no decision has been released to date.

“There are many, many issues and the board will do its very best to endeavour to have a decision as quickly as we can, but that obviously will take some time,” the EUB’s Christopher Stewart noted at the conclusion of final arguments in the rate hearing on Aug. 26.

More complex than expected

The latest problems at Lepreau began after it was taken offline April 6 for what was supposed to be a 98-day maintenance shutdown.

After sitting idle for three months during that period, the plant’s 700-megawatt generator, which had not been among the components worked on during the outage, showed a problem during routine testing done on all plant equipment prior to being restarted………………………………………………………………………….

 N.B. Power now says it is not sure when the plant will be operational.

Colder weather will increase energy replacement costs

In the summer, the utility told the EUB that delaying Lepreau’s return to service by seven weeks, from mid-July to Sept. 1, would add an estimated $71 million in unbudgeted costs to the original 98-day maintenance outage.

That included an expected $20 million in unbudgeted repairs to the generator and $51 million in costs to pay for replacement energy while Lepreau remained offline. Adding another 11 weeks or more to that downtime, some of that during colder fall weather when replacement energy costs begin to rise, will more than double those amounts.

It is a serious financial setback for N.B. Power.

Ratepayer frustrations

Major customers of N.B. Power have been expressing increasing levels of alarm about the nuclear plant’s poor performance and frustration that they are having to pay for its shortcomings…………………………………………………..

unlike storm damage, or rising fuel prices that are outside N.B. Power’s control, failings at the nuclear plant can mostly be traced to poor maintenance, poor management and poor decision-making.

They argued N.B. Power and the provincial government should be forced to absorb the financial costs of Lepreau’s troubles on their own and asked the EUB to make that happen in its ruling………………………………….  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/lepeau-nuclear-offline-generator-repairs-maintenance-cost-rates-holt-government-1.7363968

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Oxfam reaction to Knesset decision

October 29, 2024, by: The AIM Network,  https://theaimn.com/oxfam-reaction-to-knesset-decision/—

Oxfam Australia

In reaction to the Knesset passing bills banning UNRWA from operating in areas under Israel’s control, Sally Abi Khalil, Oxfam Regional Director in the Middle East and North Africa said:

“Israel has bombed Palestinians to death, maimed them, starved them, and is now ridding them of their biggest lifeline of aid. Piece by piece, Israel is systemically dismantling Gaza as a land that is autonomous and liveable for Palestinians. Its banning of UNRWA today is condemnable and another step in this crime.

“The decision will further undermine the ability of the international community to provide sufficient humanitarian aid and to save lives in any safe, independent and impartial way.

“UNRWA was not only the biggest and most established agency that has been delivering aid and sustenance to the people of Gaza for years, it was also a thread that connected them in some hope of solidarity and security to the United Nations.

“We are in no doubt that Israel and its allies are fully aware of the terrible consequences that this decision will have on Palestinians living in Gaza, many of whom are already starving. We join others in warning again that this will result in more death, more suffering, and more forced displacement of people from their besieged homeland. It is impossible not to believe that this is their aim.”

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | 1 Comment

Biden to Bibi: ‘OK to continue Gaza genocide till after election’

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coaliton, Glen Ellyn IL, 27 Oct 24

On October 14, President Biden sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu giving Israel 30 days to allow more aid of food, water and medicine into Gaza’s 139 square miles being utterly destroyed by Israel for the past year. It’s noteworthy that the 30 day time limit ends 9 days after the US election. Biden’s letter is brilliant politics and grotesque governance. Biden, who has been funding, supporting and enabling the yearlong genocide in Gaza, desperately needs to appear peace loving ahead of the election. He knows a majority of his Democratic voters are horrified by his genocide enabling. They want him to end the so far 50,000 tons of weapons he’s already given Israel to demolish Gaza.

The letter, designed to promote his concern for the devastation he’s enabled, will do nothing to end the genocide in Gaza. Netanyahu has ignored every one of Biden’s pleas for supplying life sustaining aid there. The letter doesn’t even state Biden will cut off aid to Israel. It merely implies that if US demands aren’t met, the US might consider enforcing foreign assistance laws. Those laws forbid the US from sending weapons to any nation committing wholesale destruction of civilian populations. But not one word about actually cutting off those weapons destroying Gaza.   

Every day dozens, hundreds, even a thousand or more Palestinians die in Gaza, obliterated by Biden’s 2,000 lb. bombs, or killed more slowly from disease or starvation. Biden does not care. His toothless letter begging for more aid to the 2,300,000 Palestinians will do nothing to alleviate their suffering. But it may mollify his antiwar critics enough to help achieve Democratic victory Election Day.

Win or lose November 5, Biden is unlikely to do anything substantive to end the genocidal ethnic cleansing of Gaza. It goes against everything he’s believed in and supported about Israeli colonial domination of Palestine for his entire 52 year governmental career. But it will ensure he descends into historical infamy for enabling the worst genocide of the 21st century. 

October 29, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Israel Kills Five Journalists in Sunday Gaza Attacks

Three journalists were among 9 civilians killed in a shelter

by Jason Ditz October 27, 2024,  https://news.antiwar.com/2024/10/27/israel-kills-five-journalists-in-sunday-gaza-attacks/#gsc.tab=0

Israel has come under growing international criticism for its deliberate attacks on journalists. That doesn’t seem to be impacting Israeli policy, however, as five more journalists were reported killed today in attacks across the Gaza Strip.

The victims of today’s attacks included  Saed Radwan with Al-Aqsa TV, Hamza Abu Salmiya with Sanad News Agency, Haneen Baroud with Al-Quds Foundation, Abdulrahman Al-Tanani with Sawt Al-Shaab, and Nadia Al-Sayed, who works for multiple outlets.

Radwan, Salmiya and Baroud were all killed in an Israeli attack on a UN school in al-Shati refugee camp, where people were sheltering from the ongoing attacks. Nine civilians overall, including the three journalists, were slain in the attack. The other two were killed in separate attacks.

This brings the number of journalists killed in the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip to at least 180. This toll is on top of those killed in other Israeli wars, including three Lebanese journalists who were killed in a deliberate Israeli attack on Friday.

Though Israel rarely offers specific comments on the individual assassinations, they have been making a concerted effort to brand a number of journalists as “terrorists.” Though this is being criticized by international press groups, it likely will reduce the specific questions about their eventual killing being an effort to silence reports on Israeli war crimes.

As with other civilians, many journalists are being forced to flee their homes as Israeli attacks approach. Israel has forbidden foreign journalists from entering the Gaza Strip to cover the war, and that means all the reports are coming from a shrinking number of local journalists who are still alive.

October 29, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Media Hawks Make Case for War Against Iran

This depiction of Iran as an aggressor that has victimized the United States for 45 years, causing “suffering for thousands of Americans,” is a parody of history. The fact is that the US has imposed suffering on millions of Iranians for 71 years, starting with the overthrow of the country’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. It propped up the brutal Pahlavi dictatorship until 1979, then backed Iraq’s invasion of Iran, helping Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iranians (Foreign Policy, 8/26/13). It imposes murderous sanctions on Iran to this day (Canadian Dimension, 4/3/23).

What Stephens is deploying here is the tired and baseless propaganda strategy of hinting that World War II redux is impending if America doesn’t crush the Third World bad guy of the moment.

Gregory Shupak, FAIR, 25 Oct 24

The media hawks are flying high, pushing out bellicose rhetoric on the op-ed pages that seems calculated to whip the public into a war-ready frenzy.

Just as they have done with Hezbollah (FAIR.org, 10/10/24), prominent conservative media opinionators misrepresent Iran as the aggressor against an Israel that practices admirable restraint.

Under the headline, “Iran Opens the Door to Retaliation,” the Wall Street Journal editorial board (10/1/24) wrote that Iran’s October 1 operation against Israel “warrants a response targeting Iran’s military and nuclear assets. This is Iran’s second missile barrage since April, and no country can let this become a new normal.”

The editors wrote:

After April’s attack, the Biden administration pressured Israel for a token response, and President Biden said Israel should “take the win” since there was no great harm to Israel. Israel’s restraint has now yielded this escalation, and it is under no obligation to restrain its retaliation this time.

‘We need to escalate’

The New York Times‘ self-described “warmongering neocon” columnist Bret Stephens (10/1/24), in a piece headlined “We Absolutely Need to Escalate in Iran,” similarly filed Iran’s April and October strikes on Israel under “aggression” that requires a US/Israeli military “response.” And a Boston Globe editorial (10/3/24) wrote that Iran “launched a brazen attack,” arguing that the incident illustrated why US students are wrong to oppose American firms making or investing in Israeli weapons.

All of these pieces conveniently neglected to mention that Iran announced that its October 1 missile barrage was “a response to Israel’s recent assassinations of leaders of [Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], Hezbollah and Hamas” (Responsible Statecraft, 10/1/24). One of these assassinations was carried out by a bombing in Tehran, the Iranian capital. But we can only guess as to whether the Globe thinks those killings are “brazen,” Stephens thinks they qualify as “aggression,” or if the Journal believes any country can let such assassinations “become a new normal.”

Likewise, Iran’s April strikes came after Israel’s attack on an Iranian consulate in Damascus that killed seven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers (CBS, 4/14/24). At the time, Iran reportedly said that it would refrain from striking back against Israel if the latter agreed to end its mass murder campaign in Gaza (Responsible Statecraft, 4/8/24).

‘Axis of Aggression’

A second Stephens piece (New York Times, 10/8/24) claimed that “the American people had better hope Israel wins” in its war against “the Axis of Aggression led from Tehran.” The latter is his term for the coalition of forces resisting the US and Israel from Palestine, Yemen, Lebanon and Iran, which refers to itself as the “axis of resistance.” Stephens’ reasoning is that, since Iran’s 1979 revolution, the country has meant suffering for thousands of Americans: the hostages at the US embassy in Tehran; the diplomatsand Marines in Beirut; the troops around Baghdad and Basra, killed by munitions built in Iran and supplied to proxies in Iraq; the American citizens routinely taken as prisoners in Iran; the Navy SEALs who perished in January trying to stop Iran from supplying Houthis with weapons used against commercial shipping.

The war Israelis are fighting now—the one the news media often mislabels the “Gaza war,” but is really between Israel and Iran—is fundamentally America’s war, too: a war against a shared enemy; an enemy that makes common cause with our totalitarian adversaries in Moscow and Beijing; an enemy that has been attacking us for 45 years. Americans should consider ourselves fortunate that Israel is bearing the brunt of the fighting; the least we can do is root for it.

This depiction of Iran as an aggressor that has victimized the United States for 45 years, causing “suffering for thousands of Americans,” is a parody of history. The fact is that the US has imposed suffering on millions of Iranians for 71 years, starting with the overthrow of the country’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. It propped up the brutal Pahlavi dictatorship until 1979, then backed Iraq’s invasion of Iran, helping Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iranians (Foreign Policy, 8/26/13). It imposes murderous sanctions on Iran to this day (Canadian Dimension, 4/3/23).

Given this background, suggesting—as the Journal, the Globe and Stephens do—that Iran is the aggressor against the US is not only untenable but laughable. Furthermore, as I’ve previously shown (FAIR.org, 1/21/20), it’s hardly a settled fact that Iran is responsible for Iraqi attacks on US occupation forces in the country. Stephens’ description of the Navy SEALs who died in the Red Sea is vague enough that one might be left with the impression that Iran or Ansar Allah killed them, but the SEALs died when one of them fell overboard and the other jumped into the water to try to save him (BBC, 1/22/24).

Stephens went on:

Those who care about the future of freedom had better hope Israel wins.

We are living in a world that increasingly resembles the 1930s, when cunning and aggressive dictatorships united against debilitated, inward-looking, risk-averse democracies. Today’s dictatorships also know how to smell weakness. We would all be safer if, in the Middle East, they finally learned the taste of defeat.

What Stephens is deploying here is the tired and baseless propaganda strategy of hinting that World War II redux is impending if America doesn’t crush the Third World bad guy of the moment. More realistically, the “future of freedom” is jeopardized by the US/Israeli alliance’s invading the lands of Palestinian and Lebanese people and massacring them. These crimes suggest that, in the Journal’s parlance, it’s the US/Israeli partnership that is the “regional and global menace.” Or, to borrow another phrase from the Journal’s editorial, it’s Israel and the US who are the “dangerous regime[s]” from which “the civilized world” must be defended.

‘A global menace’

Corporate media commentators didn’t stop at Iran’s direct strikes on Israel, casting Iran as, in the Journal‘s words (10/1/24), “a regional and global menace”:…………………………………………………………………

Painting Iran as the mastermind behind unprovoked worldwide aggression helps prop up the hawks’ demands for escalation. But the US State Department said there was “no direct evidence” that Iran was involved in the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel, “either in planning it or carrying it out” (NBC, 10/12/23)…………………………………………………………………………………..

Propaganda goes nuclear

As usual, those who are itching for a war on Iran invoke the specter of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Stephens (New York Times, 10/1/24) wrote:

This year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned that Iran was within a week or two of being able to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb. Even with the requisite fissile material, it takes time and expertise to fashion a nuclear weapon, particularly one small enough to be delivered by a missile. But a prime goal for Iran’s nuclear ambitions is plainly in sight, especially if it receives technical help from its new best friends in Russia, China and North Korea.

Now’s the time for someone to do something about it.

That someone will probably be Israel.

By “something,” Stephens said he also meant that “Biden should order” military strikes to destroy the “Isfahan missile complex.” “There is a uranium enrichment site near Isfahan, too,” Stephens wrote suggestively.

The LA Times published two guest op-eds in less than two weeks urging attacks on Iran based on its alleged nuclear threat. Yossi Klein Halevi (10/7/24) wrote:…………………………………..

‘Threshold’ is a ways away…………………………………………………….

Recent history shows that Iran has been willing to “stop itself” from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran abided by the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), popularly known as the Iran nuclear deal, under which Iran limited its nuclear development in exchange for a partial easing of US sanctions. It stuck to the deal for some time even after the United States unilaterally abandoned it.

Just before President Donald Trump ripped up the agreement in 2018, the IAEA reported that Iran was “implementing its nuclear-related commitments” under the accord. The year after the US abrogated the agreement, Iran was still keeping up its end of the bargain.

‘Provocative actions’ from US/Israel

Iran subsequently stopped adhering to the by then nonexistent deal—often advancing its nuclear program, as Responsible Statecraft (5/7/24) noted, “in response to provocative actions from the US and Israel”:

In early 2020, the Trump administration killed Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and soon after Tehran announced that it would no longer abide by its enrichment commitments under the deal. But, even so, Tehran said it would return to compliance if the other parties did so and met their commitments on sanctions relief.

In late 2020, Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was assassinated near Tehran, reportedly by Israel. Soon after, Iran’s Guardian Council approved a law to speed up the nuclear program by enriching uranium to 20%, increasing the rate of production, installing new centrifuges, suspending implementation of expanded safeguards agreements, and reducing monitoring and verification cooperation with the IAEA. The Agency has been unable to adequately monitor Iran’s nuclear activities under the deal since early 2021.

However, situating Iranian policies in relation to US/Israeli actions like these would get in the way of the Journal’s campaign, which it articulated in another editorial (10/2/24), to convince the public that “If Mr. Biden won’t take this opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, the least he can do is not stop Israel from doing the job for its own self-preservation.”

Of course, the crucial, unstated assumption in the articles by Stephens, Halevi, Heilman and the Journal’s editors is that Iran’s hypothetical nuclear weapons are emergencies that need to be immediately addressed by bombing the country—while Washington and Tel Aviv’s vast, actually existing nuclear arsenals warrant no concern. https://fair.org/home/media-hawks-make-case-for-war-against-iran/

October 29, 2024 Posted by | Iran, media | Leave a comment

‘You couldn’t make this up’: Expert pans Ontario nuclear option

SMH, By Bianca Hall and Nick O’Malley, October 28, 2024

Ontario subsidises its citizens’ electricity power bills by $7.3 billion a year from general revenue, an international energy expert has said, contradicting the Coalition’s claim that nuclear reactors would drive power prices down in Australia.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has repeatedly cited the Canadian province as a model for cheaper power prices from nuclear.

“In Ontario, that family is paying half of what the family is paying here in Perth for their electricity because of nuclear power,” Dutton said in March. “Why wouldn’t we consider it as a country?”

In July, Dutton said Canadian consumers paid about one-quarter of Australian prices for electricity.

Professor Mark Winfield, an academic from York University in Canada who specialises in energy and environment, on Monday said the reaction among people in Ontario to the comparison had ranged from disbelief to “you couldn’t make this up”.

Ontario embarked on a massive building spree between the 1960s and the 1990s, Winfield told a briefing hosted by the Climate Council and the Smart Energy Council.

In the process, he said, the provincial-owned utility building the generators “effectively bankrupted itself”. About $21 billion in debt had to be stranded to render the successor organisation Ontario Power Generation economically viable.

In 2015, the Canadian government approved a plan to refurbish 10 ageing reactors, but Winfield said the refurbishment program had also been beset by cost blowouts.

“The last one, [in] Darlington, east of Toronto, was supposed to cost $C4 billion and ended up costing $C14 [billion],” Winfield said.

“And that was fairly typical of what we saw, of a cost overrun in the range of about 2.5 times over estimate.”

In Melbourne, Dutton said while he respected new Queensland Premier David Crisafulli’s opposition to nuclear, he would work with “sensible” premiers in Queensland, South Australia and NSW on his plan, if he was elected………………………………………………..

Winfield said household bills were kept artificially low under the Ontario model, despite the high cost of refurbishing ageing nuclear facilities.

“There’s a legacy of that still in the system that we are effectively subsidising electricity bills to the tune of about $C7.3 billion a year out of general revenues. That constitutes most of the provincial deficit; that’s money that otherwise could be going on schools and hospitals.”

Dutton’s comments came as a parliamentary inquiry into the suitability of nuclear power for Australia continued in Canberra. Experts provided evidence on how long it would take to build a nuclear fleet, and the potential cost and impact on energy prices compared with the government’s plan to replace the ageing coal fleet with a system of renewables backed by storage and gas peakers.

……………………………………………………….. In its annual GenCost, CSIRO estimated earlier this year that a single large-scale nuclear reactor in Australia would cost $16 billion and take nearly two decades to build, too late for it to help meet Australia’s international climate change commitments, which requires it to cut emissions 43 per cent by 2030. It found renewables to be the cheapest option for Australia.

Dutton has so far refused to be drawn on the costs of his nuclear policy. Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said the Coalition would release costings before the next federal election, which must be held by May.

O’Brien told this masthead “expert after expert” had provided evidence that nuclear energy placed downward pressure on power prices around the world. ……………. https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/you-couldn-t-make-this-up-expert-pans-ontario-nuclear-option-20241028-p5klx1.html

October 29, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, Canada, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Climate Goal “Will Be Dead Within a Few Years” Unless World Acts, UN Warns

The world is well on track to blow past a goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius that many countries have put at the center of their climate efforts

By Sara Schonhardt & E&E News

Climate Goal “Will Be Dead Within a Few Years” Unless World Acts, UN
Warns. The world is well on track to blow past a goal of limiting global
warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius that many countries have put at the center
of their climate efforts. I

f current trends continue, “there is virtually
no chance” of limiting global warming over the past 170 years to 1.5
degrees, according to the latest emissions gap report from the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Even in the most optimistic
scenarios, where all countries deliver on their emission-cutting pledges,
“there remains about a 3-in-4 chance that warming will exceed 1.5C,” it
adds.

 Scientific American 25th Oct 2024, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-goal-will-be-dead-within-a-few-years-unless-world-acts-un-warns/

October 29, 2024 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

Are Royal Navy nuclear deterrent submarines being re-supplied mid-patrol?

 Navy Lookout 25th Oct 2024

A recent article in The Sun newspaper suggests that submariners were almost “starved’ while on an epic six-month patrol because the boat could not be resupplied with food as planned. Here, we briefly consider the implications of this report.

As we first reported, Vanguard-class submarines have been conducting increasingly lengthy Patrols with HMS Vigilant completing a record 195-day patrol in September 2023 and at least one other boat also came close to repeating the feat in 2024. This was due to a number of factors, including the delayed refit of HMS Vanguard and the unavailability of the shiplift in Faslane to conduct urgent maintenance.

The Sun may be dismissed by many as mostly disreputable rag but the journalists who wrote this piece have a good track record and this is a credible story. Under the superb headline “The Hunt for Bread October”, the tabloid reports that the boat ran so low on food that the crew were forced to ration meals. Personal supplies of sweets and nutty were handed in to be shared equally and the small tuckshop on board ran out of supplies and was closed. Of deeper concern, the report says medics on board feared a serious loss of life from fatigue and concentration lapses, although the RN denies there was any danger of starvation. The report does not reveal the kind of quality and frequency of meals being served towards the end of the patrol but does raise questions about the true endurance of nuclear boats.

Able to produce their own power, make freshwater, produce oxygen and remove excess CO2, nuclear submarine endurance is theoretically almost indefinite, only subject to machinery reliability. The limiting factor is the mental endurance of the people on board and their food supply. Even modern AIP conventional submarines will eventually have to return to port to take on diesel fuel so their chain of command do not have the option to extend patrols in the same way……………………………………………………………………..

The Vanguards were originally designed to conduct patrols of around three months, possibly extended to around four months at a push. The storerooms and freezers may have been subsequently modified to support even longer patrols but space is at a premium, even on a large SSBN. There is also the issue of waste disposal, SSBNs are not supposed to eject gash as it potentially could provide a clue to their presence. Imagine how much waste is generated by 130 people during six months at sea. There is also the mundane but important issue of toilet paper. Finding room for an adequate supply of bulky loo rolls can be a problem even on more spacious surface ships. It is difficult to believe that a Vanguard boat can stay at sea unsupported for 6 months, even if it began the patrol with extra food crammed into absolutely every available space.

The most critical line in the Sun article is that “plans to resupply at sea were scrapped”. It is speculation, but it would appear that in order to stay at sea for 6-months, the expectation is that the boats will be resupplied by a ship mid-patrol. This would mean surfacing somewhere and rapidly taking on food and offloading gash. This would need to be done as discreetly as possible, probably at night and in a sheltered location where the resupply can be done quickly and safely. The vessel involved may have been specially equipped for the task as coming alongside a submarine in open water is not easy. Alternatively, a helicopter could VERTREP supplies onto the casing. Either way, if this is the case, it would break a key principle of the nuclear deterrent that is never supposed to surface, potentially exposing it to detection.

With three boats back in the patrol cycle it is hoped that patrol lengths will fall slightly and these epic patrols can be avoided in future. The First Sea Lord, government ministers and His Majesty the King have all been to Faslane/Coulport in recent months to say a personal “thank you” to the crews of these boats who have clearly gone above and beyond in making personal sacrifices to maintain the continuous at-sea deterrent. The ‘super patrols’ might be tolerable on a couple of occasions but cannot be sustainable as it puts undue mental stress on people and risk the credibility and safety of the deterrent force. https://www.navylookout.com/are-royal-navy-nuclear-deterrent-submarines-being-re-supplied-mid-patrol/

October 29, 2024 Posted by | health | Leave a comment

MP seeks answers on Submarine Dismantling Project in Rosyth

26th October, By Ally McRoberts

THE UK Government have been asked what steps they’re taking to keep West Fife safe and mitigate the “potential risks” posed by the Submarine Dismantling Project.

Radioactive waste is being removed from old nuclear subs at Rosyth Dockyard and Babcock have just applied for permission for more hazardous material to be taken out in the next stage.

Christine Jardine, Lib Dem MP for Edinburgh West, submitted a question at Westminster: “To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey), what steps his department is taking to (a) ensure the safety of and (b) mitigate potential risks posed by the decommissioning of nuclear submarines at Rosyth Royal Dockyard for surrounding residential areas.”

 On Mr Healey’s
behalf, Maria Eagle, Minister for Defence Procurement, replied: “All the
submarines currently stored at Rosyth have already been de-fuelled, which
has significantly reduced overall potential risk. “Further, steps include
contractual requirements with Babcock International around safety and
environmental factors. “These include regular sampling of surrounding
waters and beaches, and dismantling one boat as a demonstrator to determine
the safest methods before starting on other boats.

 Dunfermline Press 26th Oct 2024, https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/24679595.mp-seeks-answers-submarine-dismantling-project-rosyth/

October 29, 2024 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »