UK – the Ed Milliband Nuclear Nonsense Show
Great British Nuclear’s life started out as a Boris Johnson publicity stunt to get some cheap headlines, and it’s been downhill since then. It took two years to set up (civil servants at DESNZ kept asking what this particular Bojo wet dream was all about, and are still waiting for an answer), has no proper governance arrangements, is run by a bunch of nuclear non-entities, and so far has had only one task: to run “the competition “to see who will be the recipient of pots of taxpayers’ money to bring forward our “world-beating” Small Modular Reactor programmes.
Jonathon Porritt, Sustainability Campaigner and Writer, 31 July 24
1 I’m loving the Ed Miliband Show! The curtain went up on July 5th, and it’s been one reveal a day since then………………………………….
On Friday, he brought forward the Bill to establish Great British Energy (GBE), a cornerstone of Labour’s manifesto and its Net Zero ambitions. The one thing that grabbed everyone’s attention was the new partnership between GBE and the Crown Estate to unlock £60 billion of private investment in offshore wind – with a view to securing 30 GW of electricity before 2030 (enough to provide electricity for 20 million homes). To help make this happen, another Bill was introduced to overcome some of the barriers that the Crown Estate currently faces in expediting investment at that scale. Serious stuff!
The GBE Bill also referenced another partnership – with Great British Nuclear, with the emphasis on “exploring how Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear will work together”. And end more of the same kind of meaningless blather!
Let me elaborate a bit by way of contrasting these two strategic partners.
1. The Crown Estate
This is a powerful organisation that knows what it’s doing, does it with a real sense of purpose, and has been leading the charge on offshore wind for the last decade. It has a tried and tested CEO (Dan Labbad), formerly CEO of property developer Lend Lease here in the UK), a proven sustainability champion, deal-maker and job-creator.
Other big players in the energy sector get this kind of proposition and are already coming forward with their “in principle” commitments.
2. Great British Nuclear
Great British Nuclear’s life started out as a Boris Johnson publicity stunt to get some cheap headlines, and it’s been downhill since then. It took two years to set up (civil servants at DESNZ kept asking what this particular Bojo wet dream was all about, and are still waiting for an answer), has no proper governance arrangements, is run by a bunch of nuclear non-entities, and so far has had only one task: to run “the competition “to see who will be the recipient of pots of taxpayers’ money to bring forward our “world-beating” Small Modular Reactor programmes.
It’s struggled with this somewhat limited remit (already nine months behind schedule, with at least another six months to go), even though everybody already knows that the Government’s favoured SMR black hole will be Rolls Royce – there’s nothing worse for ministers than having Tufan Erginbilgic (Rolls Royce’s powerful, whining bully of a CEO) making trouble for you.
So, Ed, where are you going to go with all this? Both the Crown Estate and Great British Energy will, theoretically, help you “de-risk” prospects for critical private sector investors. The Crown Estate will do it for real, reducing the cost of capital, smoothing planning consents, securing supply chains, creating jobs – and, in due course (if not before 2030) – making offshore wind significantly cheaper. Exactly as has happened in Denmark. Great British Nuclear will suck you in, suck you dry, and do none of that…………..
The Treasury has always been less enthusiastic about nuclear power than the rest of government. It won’t object to a few more tens of millions bunged at Rolls Royce or a few more well-paid nuclear wastrels at Culham (emphasising the links with our inconceivably costly nuclear weapons establishment).
But the tens of billions that will be required to de-risk private sector investment in Sizewell C – that’s another matter. This is the time, surely, to let Sizewell C die under the weight of its own monstrous irrelevance.
Sizewell C will obviously make literally zero contribution to the 2030 target that Labour has for decarbonising the grid. As it happens, Ed shouldn’t really be worrying too much about 2030 anyway. This isn’t going to happen (full marks to those sad gits at the Telegraph for spotting this!), but it really doesn’t matter. The key date is 2029, the date of the next election, not 2030.
……………………………..So, Ed, keep your eyes on the prize: making people feel good (and possibly even a bit excited) about the UK’s low-carbon future – in terms of jobs, skills, supply chains, lower bills and so on. Deep down, you must know as well as I do that’s all about prioritising real delivery partners (viz the Crown Estate), not about preposterous pipe-dreaming fantasists in the nuclear industry. https://www.jonathonporritt.com/go-ed-go/
Iran vows revenge after Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh killed in Tehran
Death came hours after Israel said it killed a top Hezbollah commander in Beirut, fuelling fears of regional conflict
Guardian, Emma Graham-Harrison, Quique Kierszenbaum and Bethan McKernan in Jerusalem, and William Christou in Beirut 31 July 24
Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, was killed by a strike in Tehran in the early hours of Wednesday morning, only hours after Israel said it had killed a top Hezbollah commander in Beirut.
The dual assassinations are heavy blows to Hamas and Hezbollah, but also raise the stakes for Iran, which backs both groups and vowed revenge. They will fuel growing fears that the war in Gaza could escalate into a broader regional conflict.
A senior Hamas official described Haniyeh’s killing as a “cowardly act that will not go unpunished”. Mediators Qatar and Egypt warned it would set back talks on a ceasefire and a deal to release hostages held in Gaza.
Haniyeh was targeted by an airstrike at a “residence in Tehran”, Hamas said, after he travelled to the Iranian capital for the inauguration of the country’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that because the attack took place in Tehran, “we consider his revenge as our duty”. Pezeshkian said his country would defend its territorial integrity and honour, and make the “terrorist occupiers regret their cowardly action”.
The Israeli government officially declined to comment on Haniyeh’s death, but the strike was widely acknowledged as an Israeli operation both inside the country and beyond.
Israel vowed to kill all Hamas leaders after the 7 October attacks, and its intelligence services have a history of carrying out covert killings inside Iran, mostly targeting scientists working on the country’s nuclear programme.
The retired general Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate, described the attacks on Wednesday night as “two quality operations of Israel defence forces against two top terrorists, one in Beirut and one in Tehran”.
The US defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, speaking after the assassinations, said the Biden administration was “doing things to take the temperature down” but would come to Israel’s defence if it were attacked…………………………………………………………………….
Haniyeh’s death came hours after Israel claimed it had killed Hezbollah’s top military commander, Fuad Shukur, in an airstrike on a south Beirut suburb launched in retaliation for a rocket attack that killed 12 children at the weekend…………………………………………………………….. more https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/31/hamas-leader-ismail-haniyeh-death-raid-iran-home-israel-gaza-war
Government partnership is needed if Dutch pension fund PME is to make “risky” nuclear investment.
Dutch pension fund PME keen for nuclear power investments
European Pensions , By Natalie Tuck, 30/07/24
The Dutch pension fund PME is keen to invest in nuclear investment but this must be in partnership with the Dutch government, due to it being such a “risky investment”.
The pension fund, for those working in the tech and metal industry, has published a position paper on investing in nuclear energy in the wake of the publication of the Dutch National Energy System Plan, which looks to scale up the use of nuclear energy in the Netherlands………………………….
Making the case for nuclear energy, PME said the “manageable disadvantage” of radioactive waste and the high level of safety of nuclear power plants weigh into PME’s positive view of nuclear energy as a stable addition to the energy mix……………
When it comes to financing, PME said the “high cost of construction and the long duration of construction make nuclear power plants a very risky investment”.
The paper continued: “Financing nuclear power plants requires a leading role of the state, which will have to assume a significant part of the risk in all phases of the nuclear power plant’s life. Security of return is a basic requirement for PME so that funding also contributes to participants’ pension accrual and pensioners.
“The construction of nuclear power plants takes a very long time and is very costly. It is precisely for these reasons that risk-return requirements are paramount in any financing of nuclear power.”
It therefore advocates for the use of a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model to finance the construction of nuclear power plants. In this model, private parties bear the investment, and receive a fixed ‘fair return’ (the RAB fee) from the start of construction.In the RAB model, at each stage, the primary risk is shared between the state and the financing market party or parties.
……………………….“In addition to the quantitative participant survey, PME holds focus groups with participants, retirees and employers. PME also organises retiree meetings where the topic of nuclear energy was discussed recently. The basic attitude toward nuclear energy is almost always positive among the majority of constituents. However, there are concerns about the yield, the risks, the safety of nuclear power plants and the problem of radioactive waste,” PME stated. https://www.europeanpensions.net/ep/Dutch-pension-fund-PME-keen-for-nuclear-power-investments.php
Japan continues search for its first nuclear waste disposal site by screening tiny rural town
by undergoing just the first step of screening, the town can receive grants of up to 2 billion yen (US$12.7 million).
Channel Newws Asia Michiyo Ishida, Louisa Tang 31 July 24
Japan has produced more than 19,000 tonnes of nuclear waste since it began generating atomic energy in the 1960s.
GENKAI, Japan: Cattle farmer Hiroshi Nakayama practically grew up with nuclear power in the rural town of Genkai, which has a population of just under 5,000.
The 56-year-old raises 2,000 black-haired wagyu, selling the best as premium and highly sought after Saga beef.
Even though his hometown in southern Kyushu island may one day become Japan’s final destination for nuclear waste, he brushed off concerns that it would affect his business.
Screening began last month to assess if Genkai, which has hosted a nuclear plant for about five decades, is suitable to serve as the country’s first radioactive waste disposal facility.
“Given Japan’s technology, I do not think there will be environmental contamination. Some people say it is dangerous, but no one has died from (the existence of) the nuclear plant,” Mr Nakayama told CNA…………………………
THIRD SITE TO BE SCREENED
Genkai is the third site to undergo screening after two others in Hokkaido which are still being reviewed. It is the only one among them that hosts a nuclear plant.
Japan needs a radioactive waste disposal facility as it has produced more than 19,000 tonnes of nuclear waste since it began generating atomic energy in the 1960s.
This waste will continue to accumulate in interim storage that is dangerous in the long run.
Nuclear waste needs to be stored at least 300 metres underground for about 100,000 years until radioactivity falls to acceptable levels.
Meanwhile, the entire process to select a permanent disposal site will take about 20 years.
Local authorities have the right to pull out at each stage, but by undergoing just the first step of screening, the town can receive grants of up to 2 billion yen (US$12.7 million).
The process begins with the collection of documents describing the town’s geological features. The central government-linked Nuclear Waste Management Organization will then spend two years studying the documents before publishing a report.
Based on that, local leaders will decide whether to move on to the next step.
MAYOR EXPRESSES MISGIVINGS
Some groups in Genkai, including hotel and restaurant associations, had pushed for their town to be screened by submitting petitions. These were approved by the local assembly which represents residents in Genkai.
While the town’s mayor Shintarou Wakiyama gave the green light in May, he said he has misgivings about a disposal site being built there.
One reason he cited was the size of Genkai – just 36 sq km.
“I thought we are too small and not suitable for hosting a final nuclear waste disposal site,” he added……………………………..
By having Genkai undergo screening, he said he hopes other towns will come forward.
He stressed that his decision to approve the screening was not driven by money, noting that the town’s coffers were already in good shape from substantial payouts due to hosting a nuclear plant. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/east-asia/japan-nuclear-radioactive-waste-disposal-site-screening-genkai-town-4513641
Largest wildfire in US grows to cover area bigger than Los Angeles
The largest wildfire in the US swelled to more than 380,000 acres (154,000
hectares) on Tuesday morning, an area bigger than the city of Los Angeles
and three times the surface area of Lake Tahoe, as thousands of
firefighters battled the blaze in a remote wilderness area in northern
California. Meanwhile, the destruction caused by wildfires raging across
the US west came into sharp focus as photographers documented the
destruction left by the Borel fire in southern California. The fast-growing
fire tore through the historic mining town of Havilah, leaving burnt
buildings, cars and forests.
Guardian 30th July 2024
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/california-wildfires-los-angeles
Assange, CIA Surveillance and Spain’s Audencia Nacional
Australian Independent Media, August 1, 2024, Dr Binoy Kampmark
The sordid story on the CIA-backed operation against the WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange during his time cramped in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy continues to froth and thicken. US officials have persisted in their reticent attitude, refusing to cooperate with Spain’s national high court, the Audiencia Nacional, regarding its investigation into the Agency’s espionage operations against the publisher, spearheaded by the Spanish security firm Undercover (UC) Global.
Since 2019, requests for assistance regarding the matter, including querying public statements by former CIA director Mike Pompeo and former head of counterintelligence, William Evanina, along with information mustered by the relevant Senate Intelligence Committee, have been made to US authorities by judges José de la Mata and Santiago Pedraz. These have been treated with a glacial silence.
On December 12, 2023, the General Subdirectorate of International Legal Cooperation furnished the US authorities “an express announcement” whether such judicial assistance would be denied.
Spain’s liaison magistrate in the US, María de las Heras García, duly revealed that the tardiness to engage had been occasioned by ongoing legal proceedings being conducted before the US District Court of the Southern District of New York. As Courtney E. Lee, trial attorney at the US Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs explained, supplying Spain’s national high court with such information would “interfere” with “ongoing US litigation”. Hardly a satisfactory response, given requests made prior to the putative litigation.
The litigation in question involved a legal suit filed in the US District Court of the Southern District of New York by civil rights attorney Margaret Ratner Kunstler, media lawyer Deborah Hrbek, and journalists John Goetz and Charles Glass.
In their August 2022 action, the complainants alleged that they had been the subject of surveillance during visits to Assange during his embassy tenure, conduct said to be in breach of the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs accordingly argued that this entitled them to money damages and injunctive relief from former CIA director Mike Pompeo, the director of the Spanish security firm Undercover (UC) GlobalDavid Morales, and UC Global itself.
On December 19, 2023 District Judge John G. Koeltl granted, in part, the US government’s motion to dismiss while denying other portions of it. The judge accepted the record of hostility shown by Pompeo to WikiLeaks openly expressed by his April 2017 speech and acknowledged that “Morales was recruited to conduct surveillance on Assange and his visitors on behalf of the CIA and that this recruitment occurred at a January 2017 private security industry convention at the Las Vegas Sands Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The litigants found themselves on solid ground with Koeltl in the finding that they had standing to sue the intelligence organisation. “In this case, the plaintiffs need not allege, as the Government argues, that the Government will imminently use their information collected at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.” The plaintiffs would “have suffered a concrete and particularized injury fairly traceable to the challenged program and redressable by favorable ruling” if the search of the conversations and electronic devices along with the seizure of the contents of the electronic devices were found to be unlawful.
-Advertisement-
The plaintiffs also convinced the judge that they had “sufficient allegations that the CIA and Pompeo, through Morales and UC Global, violated their reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their electronic devices.” But they failed to convince Koeltl that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their conversations with Assange, given the rather odd reasoning that they were aware the publisher was already being “surveilled even before the CIA’s alleged involvement.” Nor could such an expectation arise given the acceptance of video surveillance of government buildings. Problematically, the judge also held that those surrendering devices and passports at an Embassy reception desk “assumed the risk that the information may be conveyed to the Government.”
Sadly, Pompeo was spared the legal lash and could not be held personally accountable for violating the constitutional rightsof US citizens. “As a presidential appointee confirmed by Congress […] Defendant Pompeo is in a different category of defendant from a law enforcement agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.”…………………………………………………………………………..
As long as the Agency stifles and drags out proceedings on the grounds of this misused privilege, the Justice Department is bound to remain inert in the face of the Spanish investigation. https://theaimn.com/assange-cia-surveillance-and-spains-audencia-nacional/
Some UK higher education rejoices in the nuclear and military partnership
Nuclear decommissioning centre shares learning with MoD apprentices
An innovative engineering and maintenance centre is forging links with the Ministry of Defence to help share learnings between the nuclear and defence sectors.
Sellafield Ltd Engineering Centre of Excellence in Cleator Moor, hosted degree apprentices from Royal Naval Armaments Depot Coulport in Argyll and Bute, Scotland on Wednesday.
The visit was arranged by the Sellafield Engineering Centre of Excellence team to showcase its pioneering work with robotics, unmanned aerial vehicles, remotely operated vehicles, flight and electrical simulators and VR technology.
Five MoD degree apprentices, all on a five-year programme linked to the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, at Swansea, gained hands-on experience of operating a drone simulator, using VR equipment and a range of other remotely operated technology at the state-of-the-art centre in Cumbria. ………………………………………………………………more https://cumbriacrack.com/2024/07/30/nuclear-decommissioning-centre-shares-learning-with-mod-apprentices/
TODAY. Who will honestly face up to the problem of nuclear wastes? Rolling Stewardship as a practical option.
Dr Edwards is the first I’ve come across to simply acknowledge that there really is no definitive solution for disposing of nuclear wastes. But he moves on to a practical method of managing the wastes that now exist, (along with the aim of not creating any more). He suggests adapting a plan by the National Academy of Sciences for dealing with long-lived toxic substances – Rolling Stewardship.
Do not trust the authorities on this problem. Get real.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was set up in order to promote the nuclear industry, (and to blur and assuage the guilt from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
So – don’t expect the IAEA, and all the other worthy bodies set up to manage the industry, to genuinely face up to the problem. If it means adding costs to today’s industry – they’re not interested. (Just let’s pass it on to our grandchildren)
Do not trust the “respectable” media to genuinely address, let alone even understand, this problem. They can’t – (A) because they want to keep their jobs, and (B) they are intimidated by their feeling of not really understanding such technical matters – best leave it to the experts!
Trouble is – the experts all have a vested interest in the nuclear/ nuclear-weapons and associated industries.
Having said that, I do acknowledge that there are a courageous few – experts who see the bad stuff about nuclear. (These are soon dismissed and labelled as cranks etc) .
There are a few courageous journalists who manage to speak the truth, and still hold down their jobs in the “mainstream” media. (I will not name these, for their own employment safety.)
So – now we come to talking about nuclear wastes.
I am grateful to Gordon Edwards for coming up with a genuine examination of the question of nuclear wastes. Gordon Edwards is a mathematician, physicist, nuclear consultant, and president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (www.ccnr.org). No doubt he will soon be trashed by the “experts” as a foolish and dangerous crank.
Dr Edwards is the first I’ve come across to simply acknowledge that there really is no definitive solution for disposing of nuclear wastes. But he moves on to a practical method of managing the wastes that now exist, (along with the aim of not creating any more). He suggests adapting a plan by the National Academy of Sciences for dealing with long-lived toxic substances – Rolling Stewardship.
Dr Edwards’ concept is outlined here – Rolling stewardship of nuclear wastes. In brief, it means that we should take responsibility now for nuclear waste – store it safely and strongly above ground, away from large water bodies, and monitor it, repair and repackage containers. This is an alternative to the present plan for bury it and forget about it – leave it to future generations to cope with any issues.
This stewardship plan is expensive – the costs of making the containers really strong, and kept in repair, and the ongoing work of monitoring and repair. Indeed it will add to the already well-known diseconomics of the industry.
So the authorities and experts will not like it. But perhaps – some will. Some will join the ranks of the discredited critics of the nuclear industry. It would be something to be proud of – to join with Gordon Edwards and others who look towards a positive plan – as we exit from the nuclear age.
“Unspeakable”: Doctors Back from Gaza Say Death Toll “Much Higher,” Push Harris, Biden for Ceasefire
Democracy Now, AMY GOODMAN, 26 Jul 24
We speak to two doctors who are part of a group of 45 U.S. doctors, surgeons and nurses who have volunteered in Gaza since October 7 and wrote an open letter to President Biden and Vice President Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, demanding an immediate ceasefire and an international arms embargo of Israel. The group includes evidence of a much higher death toll than is usually cited: more than 92,000 people, which represents over 4% of Gaza’s population. The doctors write, “With only marginal exceptions, everyone in Gaza is sick, injured, or both. Israel’s continued, repeated displacement of the malnourished and sick population of Gaza, half of whom are children, to areas with no running water or even toilets available is absolutely shocking.” The conditions in Gaza are “unacceptable,” and “people know this is wrong but no one is speaking up,” says Dr. Thalia Pachiyannakis, an obstetrician and gynecologist who volunteered at the Nasser Medical Complex. “We all saw evidence of a death toll that is certainly much higher than what is reported by the Gaza Ministry of Health,” adds Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, a trauma surgeon who volunteered at the European Hospital.
Transcript
AMY GOODMAN: As Israel carries out new airstrikes on the Gaza Strip, the United Nations Palestinian refugee agency, known as UNRWA, is reporting nine in every 10 Palestinians in Gaza have been forcibly displaced. Meanwhile, the World Food Programme is warning Israel continues to block delivery of aid, and says it’s been forced to reduce food rations, quote, “to ensure broader coverage for newly displaced people,” unquote. U.N. experts are blaming Israel for the onset of famine in Gaza, accusing it of carrying out a targeted starvation campaign.
Here in the United States, days after launching her White House presidential campaign and skipping Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s joint address to Congress, vice president and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris met privately Thursday afternoon with Netanyahu, who also met with President Biden. Harris spoke afterwards.
VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: What has happened in Gaza over the past nine months is devastating. The images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time, we cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb
to the suffering. And I will not be silent.
AMY GOODMAN: Harris described her private meeting with Netanyahu as “frank and constructive.” She said nothing about cutting U.S. military assistance for Israel, even as she reiterated calls to finalize a ceasefire deal.
This comes as a group of 45 U.S. doctors, surgeons, nurses who have volunteered in Gaza since October 7th have written an open letter to President Biden and Vice President Harris, demanding an immediate ceasefire and an international arms embargo against Israel. The group of health workers include evidence of a much higher — they say there’s evidence of a much higher death toll than is usually cited: more than 92,000 people, which represents over 4% of Gaza’s population.
Two of the doctors join us now. In South Bend, Indiana, we’re joined by Thalia Pachiyannakis. She’s an obstetrician-gynecologist who returned from Gaza earlier this month after having worked at Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis. And joining us from Stockton, California, is Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, a trauma surgeon who volunteered at European Hospital in Khan Younis in the early spring. He worked with the Palestinian American Medical Association in collaboration with the World Health Organization. He recently co-wrote the recent Politico article, “We Volunteered at a Gaza Hospital. What We Saw Was Unspeakable.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….more https://www.democracynow.org/2024/7/26/feroze_sidhwa_thalia_pachiyannakis_gaza_war
As record heat risks bleaching 73% of the world’s coral reefs, scientists ask ‘what do we do now?’
A vast array of solutions are being worked on but experts urge a ‘fundamental rethink’ as temperatures are forecast to climb even higher in coming decades
Graham Readfearn Climate and environment reporter, Tue 30 Jul 2024 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/30/as-record-heat-risks-bleaching-73-of-the-worlds-coral-reefs-scientists-ask-what-do-we-do-now
After 18 months of record-breaking ocean temperatures, the planet’s reefs are in the middle of the most widespread heat-stress event on record.
Across the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans, latest figures from the US government’s Coral Reef Watch, shared with the Guardian, show 73% of the world’s corals have been hit with enough heat for them to begin bleaching.
Beginning in February 2023, this is the fourth global mass bleaching event – the second in 10 years, and the most widespread on record.
After seeing their beloved reefs struggling to survive, some coral scientists are calling for a major rethink on how to protect reefs as temperatures climb even higher in the coming decades.
“We’re coming out of a couple of decades where we made predictions,” said Prof Tracy Ainsworth, the vice-president of the International Coral Reef Society.
“Now we are at a point where we hoped we would not be. Now we’re asking, what do we do now?”
In the scientific journal Nature Climate Change, three articles were published on Monday calling on the coral conservation and science community to have a collective rethink.
“I would call it soul searching,” said Prof Tiffany Morrison, a co-author of one of the articles which is sharply critical of widespread programs, many with corporate backers, to grow corals in nurseries and then plant them out on reefs.
“When everyone realised the scale of the climate impacts on coral reefs, the first instinct was to just do something and intervene because people were so distressed.”
In Florida and the Caribbean last year, many replanted corals died as record-breaking heat stress swept across the region
“We need a fundamental rethink,” said Prof David Bellwood, a colleague of Morrison’s at James Cook University in Australia.
“Too much is at stake. At the moment, coral restoration is at best psychological relief and cosmetic conservation, and at worst a dangerous distraction from climate action.”
Critical coral
Coral reefs provide food for millions of people around the world. They also provide the raw material that eventually becomes much of the sand on beaches and protect coastlines from wave damage.
When corals sit in water that is too hot, they expel algae in their tissues that provide colour and much of their nutrients.
Dr Derek Manzello, director of Coral Reef Watch, said the number of reefs affected by heat stress from the current global event was still rising and had “definitely led to most everyone involved with reef science and restoration having a hard think about future activities and best practices”.
The current global event has affected reefs in 70 countries and the full impact may never be fully understood.
The world’s biggest coral reef system – the Great Barrier Reef – has also likely been through its worst coral bleaching event, but government scientists may not know until next year how many corals died.
Whether an individual coral survives bleaching depends on each species and the extremes and duration of heat.
In another scientific article, Prof Michael Webster of New York University suggested a radical idea which, he said, would have been far too controversial for a scientific paper only 10 years ago.
Coral reefs exist across tropical waters around the world but are adapted to local conditions. Conservationists should consider introducing corals that have evolved in very hot regions to reefs where the current mix of corals are struggling to survive, Webster said.
“It’s incredibly controversial and we might not ever go there, but we’re in a situation where we’re questioning if we will have reefs in many places. Is it now worth asking that question?”
Webster said coral reefs would have a better chance of surviving through the coming decades if they had a diversity of coral species.
“Getting CO2 down has to be our end game, but we have centuries where coral systems like reefs will be in trouble.”
Cautious interventions
It’s interventions like that mooted by Webster that Morrison is cautious about.
There’s a vast array of scientific solutions for coral reefs currently being worked on around the world, from whitening clouds to shade reefs to selective breeding of corals for increased heat tolerance.
“We are vesting too much money and hope into these speculative coral bioengineering and genetic engineering solutions,” Morrison said. “We don’t know if they’re scalable and, if they are, whether we can afford to scale them.”
Many interventions come up against a philosophical question. Who decides which species to save or modify, or which steps to take? Those decisions could dictate what reefs look like in the future – decisions made by humans, not by nature.
“There are very few people looking at unintended consequences and there’s no governance systems in place to manage that,” Morrison said.
“But number one – we have to be mitigating fossil fuels.”
Freaking out
Members of the International Coral Reef Society wrote in May that scientists needed to “reconsider this challenge” of protecting reefs.
Because efforts to cut global greenhouse gas emissions were too slow, governments and communities needed to redouble efforts to reduce other stressors on corals, such as overfishing and local water pollution, the society said.
Tim McClanahan, a reef ecologist and director of marine science at the US-based Wildlife Conservation Society, admitted “people are freaking out” from the current bleaching.
He said there was little evidence coral restoration projects had restored reefs at scale, and in places like Florida, coral nurseries had been destroyed by heat.
“I think they are ignoring past experiences and not recognising the science,” he said.
“I’m concerned that a problem we have with NGOs is we’re not very good at admitting to our failures. I find there’s a tendency to act without consulting the literature.”
McClanahan, in a third article in Nature Climate Change, said predicting the future for coral reefs needed to be more sophisticated.
Rather than just including heat, modelling should account for how reefs react differently to heat stress depending on local conditions like the mix of coral species or how well protected they are. The prognosis for some reefs may not be quite so dire, he argued.
McClanahan has been working on reefs for 40 years and said he has seen them go from undisturbed wonders to shadows of their former selves.
“Yes, the reefs are screwed – in deep trouble. We’re experiencing very austere conditions for corals already,” he said.
“In the 90s I was in grief, but now I want to know how we deal with the situation that we’re in. We are not dealing with it very well and we have this fatalistic view.
“We should be freaking out. That’s not an unreasonable response, but we need to sit back and be a bit more intelligent.”
Californians defy evacuation orders as wildfire threatens homes
Residents of a small California town are refusing to evacuate as one of the
largest wildfires in the state’s history threatens their homes. More than
4,000 firefighters and emergency personnel are battling the Park fire in
northern California, which by Monday had burned more than 350,000 acres
across four counties. The fire broke out on Wednesday, when authorities say
a man pushed a burning car into a ravine near the city of Chico, about 160
miles north of San Francisco.
Times 29th July 2024
U.S. company HOLTEC approaches South Yorkshire with £1.3bn offer to start Small Nuclear Reactor production
Representatives from an American nuclear energy company have visited South
Yorkshire as it explores options for a new Small Modular Reactor (SMR)
facility. Earlier this year, Holtec – which has been working at Sizewell B
for more than15 years – shortlisted South Yorkshire as a potential location
for its new SMR factory in the UK. The factory would present a major £1.3bn
investment and job creation opportunity. Representatives from Holtec and
senior officers from the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority visited
three potential factory sites in the region. The mayor and the Holtec
delegation also met with senior business representative in the region to
gain an insight into the region’s industrial heritage, strengths and
potential for future growth.
Insider Media 29th July 2024
https://www.insidermedia.com/news/yorkshire/nuclear-power-specialist-visits-south-yorkshire
Japan nuclear watchdog panel decides against restarting Tsuruga reactor
difficult to determine the safety of the reactor, noting the proximity of a seismic faultline.
The government in Japan, one of the world’s most seismically active countries, does not allow nuclear plants to be situated over active faultlines.
July 27 2024, TOKYO, https://japantoday.com/category/national/japan-nuclear-watchdog-panel-decides-against-restarting-tsuruga-reactor1
A panel of Japan’s nuclear watchdog decided on Friday against restarting a reactor at the Tsuruga nuclear power plant citing seismic risks, paving the way for the regulator to keep the Japan Atomic Power plant shut.
The panel said it was difficult to determine the safety of the reactor, noting the proximity of a seismic faultline. Consequently, it said, the reactor was not deemed compliant with criteria for installation licensing.
“We will conduct an additional investigation. We are not considering decommissioning the plant,” Mamoru Muramatsu, president of Japan Atomic Power, said after the panel meeting, according to Kyodo News Agency.
The government in Japan, one of the world’s most seismically active countries, does not allow nuclear plants to be situated over active faultlines.
The panel is set to report its decision to the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) soon.
If approved, this would be the first case of non-compliance under the stricter safety standards imposed after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
The move could hinder the government’s efforts to restart more nuclear power plants to ensure a stable energy supply.
Japan, which had 54 operational reactors before the 2011 disaster, has restarted only 12 of the 33 nuclear reactors it has been considering restarting.
Along with most reactors in Japan, operations at the Tsuruga’s No.2 reactor have been halted since 2011 following triple meltdowns at Tokyo Electric Power’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
On March 11, 2011, Japan’s northeast coast was struck by a magnitude 9 earthquake, the strongest quake in Japan on record, and a massive tsunami, triggering the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl a quarter of a century earlier.
Atomic Fallacy: Why Nuclear Power Won’t Solve the Climate Crisis
Although climate change scares me, I am even more scared of a future with more nuclear plants.
My bottom line is that nuclear energy, whether with old reactor designs or new faux alternatives, will simply not resolve the climate crisis. The threat from climate change is urgent. The world has neither the financial resources nor the luxury of time to expand nuclear power.
LIT HUB, By M.V. Ramana, July 29, 2024
M.V. Ramana Debunks Some Common Arguments About Energy In an Era of Ecological Emergency
I am scared about how fast climate change is disrupting our world. At a theoretical level, I have known for decades about growing carbon dioxide emissions and resultant changes to global and local temperatures, sea-level rise, severe storms, wildfires, and so on…………………………..
I can go on for much longer in this vein. But there isn’t any need. Just about anyone alive today has been impacted in some way by climate change.
As someone trained in physics, and as an academic paid to research, I have been drawn to studying one essential contributor to these crises: how energy and electricity are produced, especially those methods proposed to mitigate climate change. Prominent among these proposals is nuclear energy.
Although climate change scares me, I am even more scared of a future with more nuclear plants. Increasing how much energy is produced with nuclear reactors would greatly exacerbate the risk of severe accidents like the one at Chernobyl, expand how much of our environment is contaminated with radioactive wastes that remain hazardous for millennia, and last but not least, make catastrophic nuclear war more likely.
Some might argue that these risks are the price we must pay to counter the threat of climate change. I disagree, but even if one were to adopt this position, my research shows that nuclear energy is just not a feasible solution to climate change. A nuclear power plant is a really expensive way to produce electricity. And nuclear energy simply cannot be scaled fast enough to match the rate at which the world needs to lower carbon emissions to stay under 1.5 degrees Celsius, or even 2 degrees.
Cost and the slow rate of deployment largely explain why the share of global electricity produced by nuclear reactors has been steadily declining, from around 16.9 percent in 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was signed, to 9.2 percent in 2022. In contrast, as the costs of wind and solar energy declined dramatically, and modern renewables (which do not include large dams) went from supplying 1.2 percent of the world’s electricity in 1997 to 14.4 percent in 2022……………………………………………
We were not the only people coming up with reasons for not believing in the claim that new reactor designs would solve all these problems. Other scientists and analysts also highlighted the dangers and false promises of SMRs.
Nuclear advocates are not deterred by such arguments. They insist that this time it will be different. Nuclear plants would be cheap, would be quick to build, would be safe, would never have to be shut down in unplanned ways, and would not be affected by climate-related extreme weather events. The evidence from the real world, which I elaborate on later, suggests otherwise. Nuclear reactors are unlikely to possess any of these characteristics, let alone all of them. Thus, what is actually being advocated might be termed faux nuclear plants, existing only in the imagination of some, not in the real world.
My bottom line is that nuclear energy, whether with old reactor designs or new faux alternatives, will simply not resolve the climate crisis. The threat from climate change is urgent. The world has neither the financial resources nor the luxury of time to expand nuclear power. Meanwhile, even a limited expansion would aggravate a range of environmental and ecological risks. Further, nuclear energy is deeply imbricated in creating the conditions for nuclear annihilation. Expanding nuclear power would leave us in the worst of both worlds……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The classic American entrepreneurial hero searches out unmet desires in the everyday world and then, with a certain flexible flair, invents the answers, products for the masses to use. Von Braun’s genius lay elsewhere. He was brilliant at inventing new and different uses for the only product he ever desired to make, the space rocket. He was a master at selling his one product to the only customers who could ever afford it, a nation’s rulers.
Much like von Braun, vendors and advocates of nuclear power are really interested only in selling nuclear reactors, and they try to invent different uses for their favored product. Delivering clean water, heating houses or industries, and propelling rockets and ships are all only vehicles for selling nuclear reactors. However, the appeal to other uses for nuclear reactors is also, simultaneously, an expression of the inability of the technology to economically deliver on its primary product: electricity. It is the weakness of the nuclear industry that forces it to seek alliances with other constituencies.
From Nuclear Is Not the Solution: The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change by M.V. Ramana. Available from Verso Books.
Extreme heat poses ‘real risk’ to Spain’s mass tourism industry
Public health adviser says higher temperatures caused by climate crisis pose danger for visitors not used to them.
Guardian, Sam Jones in Madrid, Sat 27 Jul 2024
The climate emergency poses a “real risk” to Spain’s traditional mass tourist model as rising temperatures and more frequent heatwaves hit the country’s most popular coastal destinations, a senior public health adviser has warned.
Héctor Tejero, the head of health and climate change at Spain’s health ministry, said the increasingly apparent physical impacts of the climate emergency had already led the ministry to begin talks with the British embassy on how best to educate “vulnerable” tourists about coping with the heat……………………………………………………………………………………………
The risks have been made clear in other parts of southern Europe grappling with extreme heat. In June, several foreign tourists, including the British television presenter Michael Mosley, died during a period of unseasonably high temperatures in Greece.
Tejero noted that recent epidemiological studies had shown that approximately 3,000 deaths are attributable to the heat each year in Spain, and that hot spells cause a 10% rise in urgent hospital admissions. He also said higher temperatures would also lead to an increase in vector-borne diseases, pointing out that a man was admitted to hospital in Madrid this week with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, an emerging disease spread by ticks. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/27/extreme-heat-poses-real-risk-to-spains-mass-tourism-industry
1 This Month
26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (291)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
