Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Australia is ready for a change on climate – which party will take the first step? — RenewEconomy

A new poll finds that Australians are ready to take serious climate action – including banning new coal mines across Australia. The post Australia is ready for a change on climate – which party will take the first step? appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Australia is ready for a change on climate – which party will take the first step? — RenewEconomy

May 29, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Environmentalists and Aboriginal traditional owners object to rocket launching on South Australian protected heritage land, at Whaler’s Way.

Rocket launching proposals worry traditional owners, environmentalists, but company committed to holistic care of the land, ABC Eyre Peninsula / By Evelyn Leckie 28 May 21,  Popular South Australian tourist spot Whalers Way could become the site of three test rocket launches later this year, causing concern among some environmentalists and traditional owners.

Key points:

  • Traditional owners and conservationists have raised concerns about the proposed site for three rocket launches this year
  • Nature Conservation SA holds concerns over two threatened species
  • Southern Launch says it’s committed to a holistic approach to care for the area during its testing program.

SA space industry leader Southern Launch is looking to conduct test launches on privately owned land, with a view to making the area a permanent launching site in the future to send satellites into space. 

Nature Conservation Society of SA advocate Julia Peacock said the area, on the state’s rugged southern coast, wasn’t the right site to conduct test launches.

“It’s a really special conservation area,” she said.

“It’s actually specifically protected under environment legislation that’s called a heritage agreement, which means a private landholder agreement to protect that area so we would really like to see that agreement honoured.

We’re also really concerned that it is habitat for a number of species of conservation concern.”

Ms Peacock said the society was worried about threatened species in the area such as southern emu wrens and white-fronted whip birds.

“They’re very small and shy birds, so they’re quite hard to see,” she said. 

We’re concerned that we’re building an industrial facility that involves explosions that are noisy and causes vibrations —  that those species are going to be frightened.

“It’s going to change their behaviour and impact the way they want to move through this area.”

‘Let it be natural’

Nauo elder Jody Miller said there were a lot of cultural issues out at Whalers Way.

“It’s significant culturally, there are stories [out there] and we don’t want to destroy anything,” Mr Miller said. 

“If it’s just left alone, let it be natural, people can see this for the next generation — everybody’s children as well as my children.”

Holistic protection

Southern Launch CEO Lloyd Damp said the testing program would provide the chance to specifically measure what the noise effect would have on local species.

“We’re working with one of the best universities in Australia to undertake the measurements and then provide that for the environmental impact statement assessment,” Mr Damp said………..   https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-28/rocket-launching-proposals-worry-environmentalists/100173472

May 29, 2021 Posted by | environment, South Australia, technology | Leave a comment

Ionising radiation the big danger to astronauts

NASA says that not only does space radiation potentially put astronauts at greater risk of radiation sickness, but an “increased lifetime risk for cancer, central nervous system effects, and degenerative diseases.”

Astronauts in space are exposed to the radiation equivalent of 150 to 6,000 chest x-rays  https://www.revelstokereview.com/news/morning-start-astronauts-in-space-are-exposed-to-the-radiation-equivalent-of-150-to-6000-chest-x-rays/ May 28, 2021 

As noted by NASA, radiation is a type of energy that is emitted in the form of rays, electromagnetic waves and/or particles. Radiation can be seen as visible light or felt as infrared radiation. However, some forms of radiation, like x-rays and gamma rays, are not visible.

Space radiation differs from the type of radiation experienced on Earth because intergalactic radiation “is comprised of atoms in which electrons have been stripped away as the atom accelerated in interstellar space to speeds approaching the speed of light – eventually, only the nucleus of the atom remains.”

So how much space radiation are astronauts exposed to? They’re exposed to “ionizing radiation with effective doses in the range from 50 to 2,000 mSv. 1 mSv of ionizing radiation is equivalent to about three chest x-rays. So that’s like if you were to have 150 to 6,000 chest x-rays.”

With that being said, NASA says that not only does space radiation potentially put astronauts at greater risk of radiation sickness, but an “increased lifetime risk for cancer, central nervous system effects, and degenerative diseases.”

May 29, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New technology comes nowhere close to solving the problem of nuclear waste

New technology comes nowhere close to solving the problem of nuclear waste, Toronto Star, By Thomas Walkom May 27, 2021  What is to be done with nuclear waste? It is a question that dominates the Atomic Age. It is also one that has never been satisfactorily answered…..

nuclear waste is a relentless certainty. A plant that produces nuclear power creates nuclear waste. It is that simple.But what to do with that waste? Up to now, the assumption was that such waste would be buried in deep geological caverns, or repositories. Two potential sites for such repositories have been identified — one in Northwestern Ontario and one near Lake Huron. The usual political battles are being waged over whether either or both sites are safe.

But over the last few years, more attention has been paid to a different solution — using radioactive waste as fuel to create more nuclear power from so-called small modular reactors (SMRs). The governments of Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick have been particularly interested in developing this new SMR technology.

One New Brunswick start-up, Moltex Energy of Saint John, has received $50.5 million in federal funds.

The new technology has its critics. In the first place, it can create new and even more dangerous radioactive waste. As the Globe and Mail reports, Moltex says it produces an impure form of plutonium as a waste byproduct from its SMRs. Pure plutonium is used in the manufacture of atomic bombs.

Indeed, some nuclear experts, including former senior U.S. officials, were so alarmed that seven of them took the unusual step of penning an open letter this week to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

In that letter, they warned that reprocessing waste in a manner that creates plutonium would undermine global efforts to limit nuclear proliferation.

They also noted that the new technology wouldn’t solve the waste problem. Rather, it would just produce different kinds of nuclear waste.

“Moltex, even in the R&D stage, would create a costly legacy of contaminated facilities and radioactive waste streams and require substantial additional government funding for cleanup,” the letter said.

All of this is true. But none of it is enough to derail the new interest in SMR technology. Governments like it because it promises to be cheaper to build than classic Pickering-style nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry sees it as a political lifeline at a time when atomic power is not particularly popular.

So regardless of what its critics say, don’t expect this new technology to fade away. It may not be the silver bullet that its adherents claim it to be. It comes nowhere close to solving the waste problem.

But it is supported by important political constituencies. History has shown how crucial this support has been to the nuclear industry.  https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2021/05/27/new-technology-comes-nowhere-close-to-solving-the-problem-of-nuclear-waste.html

May 29, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australia, the USA’s only ”best friend” in the Indo Pacific, to deploy more USA military equipment, heightening the threat against China.

Zhang Junshe, a senior research fellow at the PLA Naval Military Studies Research Institute, told the Global Times on Friday that Australia is likely to allow the US to deploy more military equipment on its soil, making it the only US friend on its Indo-Pacific strategy. 

By doing this, Australia will make itself a target for future military conflicts between the US and other countries, Zhang said, adding that a responsible government which really cares about the interests of its people would never allow it.  

China urged to increase sea-based nuclear deterrent amid US intensified strategic threat  https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1224773.shtml By Zhang Hui May 28, 2021  Facing a serious strategic threat from the US, China was urged to increase the number of nuclear weapons, especially its sea-based nuclear deterrent of intercontinental submarine-launched ballistic missiles, to deter potential military action by US warmongers, Chinese military experts said on Friday, after reports that the US’ new defense budget will modernize its nuclear arsenal to deter China. 

Having a nuclear arsenal appropriate to China’s position will help safeguard national security, sovereignty and development interests and establish a more stable and peaceful world order, which will be beneficial for the world, they said.The US defense budget, set to be sent to Congress on Friday, is expected to include investments in troop readiness, space, and the Pacific Deterrence Initiative aimed at countering China’s military existence in the region, and nuclear weapons technology, Reuters reported on Thursday. 

However, Chinese military experts believe that US attempts of increasing military deployment in the Indo-Pacific region will not increase returns for the US as most countries in the region will not allow the flames of war initiated by the US to burn themselves. 
The US would buy ships and jets and develop and test hypersonic weapons and other “next-generation” weapons systems to build capabilities to counter Russia and China. The total national security budget will be $753 billion, a 1.7 percent increase over the 2021 figure, Reuters said. 

China has kept its defense spending at around 1.3 percent of GDP in recent years, which is far below the average global level of 2.6 percent, data shows. The US, by far the world’s top military spender, has spent about four times that of China in recent years.
Chinese analysts said China has never taken aim at US military spending, nor does China want to engage in any form of arms race with the US. 

But the US has applied greater military pressure on China, sending warships and warplanes at an increasing frequency to the South China Sea and Taiwan Straits.

The US is also preparing what US media called its “biggest navy exercise in a generation with 25,000 personnel across 17 time zones,” as it’s preparing for a “possible conflict” with China and Russia. 

The US attempted to deepen the militarization of space with its new budget plan, including its investment on future weapons. Considering that the US deems China its top imaginary enemy, China needs to increase the quantity and quality of nuclear weapons, especially submarine-launched ballistic missiles, to effectively safeguard its national security, sovereignty and development interests, Song Zhongping, a Chinese military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Friday. 

Some military experts said China should increase the number of its most advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), the DF-41, which has the longest operational range among all Chinese ICBMs. 

Facing a serious strategic threat from the US, China was urged to increase the number of nuclear weapons, especially its sea-based nuclear deterrent of intercontinental submarine-launched ballistic missiles, to deter potential military action by US warmongers, Chinese military experts said on Friday, after reports that the US’ new defense budget will modernize its nuclear arsenal to deter China. 

Having a nuclear arsenal appropriate to China’s position will help safeguard national security, sovereignty and development interests and establish a more stable and peaceful world order, which will be beneficial for the world, they said.

Song said that strengthening sea-based strategic nuclear deterrence is also an important direction for China’s future development, as these weapons are better at stealth and secondary nuclear strikes. 

China could use its most advanced submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) to effectively counter the US threat, Song said. 

China just commissioned three PLA Navy warships, namely the Changzheng 18, the Dalian and the Hainan, at a naval port in Sanya, South China’s Hainan Province in April. Observers identified the Changzheng 18 as a likely Type 09IV nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarine. 

Burning themselves

The US Pacific Deterrence Initiative, created to counter China, focuses on competition in the Indo-Pacific and aims to boost US preparedness in the region by funding radars, satellites and missile systems, according to Reuters. 

Wei Dongxu, a Beijing-based military expert, told the Global Times on Friday that the initiative enables the US to use a variety of spy satellites to conduct reconnaissance and intelligence gathering to provide extensive and accurate intelligence support for US military operations, including joint military operations with its allies, and the US will also use allies, such as US overseas military bases, to deploy more radar systems to guide its weapons.

On the day its budget was sent to Congress, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was expected to meet with India’s Minister of External Affairs, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, as part of India’s first cabinet-level visit to Washington, the Pentagon said. 

“The secretary’s meeting with the external affairs minister will continue discussions that the two held in New Delhi in March and will continue the robust bilateral defense and security relationship between our two countries,” the Pentagon said. 

Chinese military experts said it’s likely that India would buy more American weapons, have more military drills with the US or deepen its cooperation with the US in military intelligence sharing, and the US will use these in exchange for India’s cooperation for its Indo-Pacific strategy. 

But India will have second thoughts on US military deployment on its soil, Song said, noting that weapons and radar deployment involves a country’s sovereignty, and India, which has been claiming to pursue an independent foreign policy, will unlikely give the US a satisfactory answer.

Even if India would like to deepen its military cooperation with the US, certain cooperation such as opening military bases to the US is not an option for India, Song said. 

India may not be a very ideal partner, and most of US allies in Asia, including Japan and South Korea, also fear that the flames of war would eventually burn themselves. 

In South Korea, protests against US military presence have become louder in the past years, and South Korea will not allow the US to turn Northeast Asia into a battlefield and drag itself into war, nor will it sacrifice its relations with China, observers said. 

Zhang Junshe, a senior research fellow at the PLA Naval Military Studies Research Institute, told the Global Times on Friday that Australia is likely to allow the US to deploy more military equipment on its soil, making it the only US friend on its Indo-Pacific strategy. 

By doing this, Australia will make itself a target for future military conflicts between the US and other countries, Zhang said, adding that a responsible government which really cares about the interests of its people would never allow it.  

May 29, 2021 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The time to divest from Bitcoin is now

The time to divest from Bitcoin is now, Independent Australia, By John Quiggin | 29 May 2021  The rising price of cryptocurrencies is resulting in higher demands for electricity in order to produce them, writes Professor John Quiggin.

TWO RECENT DEVELOPMENTS in financial markets have big and directly opposed implications for the future of the global climate. On the one hand, financial institutions of all kinds are divesting from carbon-based fuels. On the other hand, they are increasingly embracing one of the most pointless and destructive trends of recent times — cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.

Let’s start with the good news. Not so long ago, divestment from coal mines and coal-fired power stations appeared a symbolic moral gesture, undertaken by socially-minded investors who were willing to narrow their investment options rather than profit from environmental destruction. As it turned out, the socially-minded investors did well, while the hardheads who kept coal miners and oil companies in their portfolios lost badly.  

Jumping forward to the present, divestment has become the norm, though the process has typically been made in a series of baby steps. At this point, nearly all financial institutions in developed market economies have limited their exposure to coal and indicated a strategy to end any association with thermal coal, used in power generation. (Alternatives to metallurgical coal, used in steelmaking, are in an early stage of development, unlike solar and wind electricity generation)………………….

The progress being made on divestment from coal contrasts sharply with the eager embrace of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Although they were once supposed to replace existing currencies as a medium of exchange, cryptocurrencies are now used only as a speculative asset and as a way of conducting illegal transactions like ransomware payments. 

The “proof of work” process by which Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies are generated depends on “miners” competing to solve increasingly elaborate, but pointless, mathematical problems using specially designed computers and lots of electricity. The higher the price of Bitcoins, the more electricity it is worth burning to generate them.

Calculations a few years ago suggested that the electricity used in Bitcoin mining was comparable to the total demand of a small country like New Zealand. But as the price has risen, so has the demand on electricity resources, to the point where abandoned coal-fired power stations are being reopened. Even when Bitcoin is mined using renewable electricity, that electricity is diverted from other uses, which must then rely on coal-fired or gas-fired electricity.

As concerns have risen about the environmental damage caused by cryptocurrencies, attempts have been made to find “green” ways of producing them. Past efforts of this kind have failed, but perhaps these will succeed. However, we don’t have time to wait and see. Financial institutions need to divest from cryptocurrencies and financial regulators need to shut them down. When and if an environmentally safe version emerges, we can take another look.

John Quiggin is Professor of Economics at the University of Queensland. His new book, The Economic Consequences of the Pandemic, will be published by Yale University Press in late 2021……………   https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-time-to-divest-from-bitcoin-is-now,15137

May 29, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A People’s Guide to the War Industry, by Christian Sorensen — Rise Up Times

“The main role of the federal government under capitalism is to maintain the capitalist economic system and set the general conditions by which large corporations and billionaires are able to accrue more and more profit.”

A People’s Guide to the War Industry, by Christian Sorensen — Rise Up Times

May 29, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How the American war industry infiltrates education

A People’s Guide to the War Industry -2: Profits & Deception Consortium News 26 May 21, ”…………..Academia

Education in the United States exists within narrow confines. The working class educated in elementary and secondary schools are not given the opportunity to learn about capitalism, let alone the horrific nature and devastating effects of the U.S. war industry. They are not taught about how the interests of the ruling class (including the Pentagon’s leadership, industry executives, Wall Street financiers, and Congress) clash head-on with the interests of the working class. An uneducated population will not mobilize effectively against its oppressors. This atmosphere of ignorance greatly benefits the MIC.

The war industry and the Pentagon fund extensive science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) initiatives across the U.S. and in allied countries. By attracting students into STEM careers, the war industry and the Pentagon prepare and safeguard their future. Industry promotion of STEM lays the groundwork for future design, engineering, and production capacity, while the Pentagon promotes STEM in order to foster a technologically literate workforce and future generations of enlisted troops who are capable enough to operate the war industry’s products. STEM efforts are comprehensive, covering a wide geographical area and all ages, from elementary through university.

Many universities in the United States are part of the U.S. war industry. The role of these academic institutions is threefold: research and develop technology, serve as a holding station (e.g. Harvard’s Belfer Center) for MIC elites before they rotate into government or corporate suites, and accept philanthropy from war profiteers thereby whitewashing capitalist brutality. The main academic participants in the war industry include but are not limited to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Johns Hopkins University, Stanford University, the University of Dayton, and Georgia Tech.

The U.S. government runs many research labs pursuing military and intelligence R&D. The Army Research Lab and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity are located in Maryland. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Office of Naval Research are in Arlington, Virginia. The Air Force Research Lab is run out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, northeast of Dayton, Ohio, with branches in New Mexico and upstate New York. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Engineer Research & Development Center is in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Most work in and for these labs is carried out by corporations and academic institutions, not uniformed military personnel.

report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued in September 2020 detailed, “DOD does not know how contractors’ independent R&D projects fit into the department’s technology goals.”

“Brain drain” happens when industry herds intelligent people toward purposes of war, like when a graduate of an engineering school goes to work for a war corporation instead of a municipality. Humanity thus loses skilled human beings as a result. Brain drain is a great tragedy, and the war industry’s biggest success. In Boston, the U.S. Air Force alone funds ninety different research projects, according to the Air Force Secretary. And that’s just the publicly declared actions of one branch of the military in one city.

Lockheed Martin alone employs nearly 50,000 scientists and engineers, according to its CEO in her presentation to the Society of Women Engineers. Imagine if these minds were working on problems and projects for the betterment of humanity and the planet, instead of devising more ingenious ways to surveil or murder. Imagine the possibilities.

Effective science is based on free, open discussion. Military funding and stipulations (compartmentation, shoehorned focus, classification, near-term deadlines, stove-piped fields) oppose free, open discussion. Breakthroughs benefitting humanity rarely happen when people are tied to military-industry funding priorities, schedules, and narrow cognitive confines. Military and industry shun and condemn the polymath, the free thinker, and the uninhibited tinkerer. Military and industry embrace and fund the careerist, the complicit academic, the rigid functionary, the greedy corporatist, and the aspiring bureaucrat. Military-industry science may possess strong minds, but it does not often make the scientific breakthroughs society needs…… https://consortiumnews.com/2021/05/26/a-peoples-guide-to-the-war-industry-2-profits-deception/

May 29, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Opposition grows to small nuclear reactors over alarming risks

The breadth of opposition is enormous. In a massive display of solidarity in November, some 100 environmental groups signed a letter from the Canadian Environmental Law Association calling SMRs dirty and dangerous.

By Charles Mandel | News | National Observer, May 25th 2021 https://tinyurl.com/3zy8msrp

The federal government and the four provincial governments that back nuclear power as part of the solution to greenhouse gas emissions face widespread opposition to their plans.

Environmental groups, some 120 women in leadership positions and three political parties have raised objections to the continued use of and ongoing development of nuclear power in Canada over the past couple of years. And frustration over the continued push for nuclear has intensified in recent months.

Anger over the intent to position nuclear power as a viable renewable comes at a time when federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan (under whose department falls the responsibility for nuclear power) has made bullish speeches endorsing its use.

While the governments tout nuclear as an integral part of any climate crisis solution, alongside solarwind and other renewables, many environmentalists point out there is one intractable problem no one has been able to solve. Regardless of how small reactors become, they will still produce toxic waste, a deal-killer in many people’s eyes.

Critics also raise red flags over the possibility that the design of some SMRs will enable terrorists to more easily steal nuclear fuel for weapons. And they point out SMR technology is at least five years away and will land too late to address the growing climate crisis.

The breadth of opposition is enormous. In a massive display of solidarity in November, some 100 environmental groups signed a letter from the Canadian Environmental Law Association calling SMRs dirty and dangerous. Susan O’Donnell, an academic at the University of New Brunswick, is one of the more vocal protesters against the use of nuclear. She maintains Canada doesn’t have a solution to the long-term problem of radioactive waste from the CANDU reactors now operating, “and now we’ll be creating new kinds of waste that we won’t know what to do with either.” 

“We should not be funding technologies until we figure out how to deal with all those environmental issues that they raise, and we’re so far from doing that.”

Moltex Energy Canada in New Brunswick is developing an SMR that will generate heat when nuclear fission takes place in tubes filled with molten salt fuel. O’Donnell says the process will create new toxic waste streams never dealt with in Canada before. 

“We have no experience with it, and if you look at the peer-reviewed literature on this, they actually don’t even know what kinds of materials can contain these liquid waste streams. It’s going to be dirty, it’s going to be messy, and it’s right beside the Bay of Fundy, which is a big red flag for environmentalists.”

She also believes SMRs “are not worth the wait. They’re too slow and costly as a climate crisis solution, and that’s what they’re being touted as…”

SMR technology is still in its infancy; while the Liberal government has given nuclear manufacturers tens of millions of dollars, so far, SMRs remain in research and development with the first reactors expected to be built sometime between 2026 and 2030.

O’Donnell dismisses SMRs as a speculative technology, and contends that it will take at least a decade to get them off the drawing board — and even longer to find out if they actually work. “We don’t have that kind of time for the climate crisis,” she recently told Canada’s National Observer.

When it comes to protesting the ongoing development of the Canadian nuclear industry, O’Donnell is far from a lone voice in the wilderness. Since the Liberal government began seriously pushing nuclear in 2019, a number of disparate groups have pushed back equally hard.

In September, the Green Budget Coalition — made up of groups ranging from the David Suzuki Foundation to the Sierra Club Canada Foundation — stated uncertainties, questionable economics, and a previously unsuccessful track record in developing new nuclear technology should preclude federal support for SMRs.

The coalition points out that between 2002 and 2009, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited received $433.5 million in federal subsidies to develop the Advanced CANDU Reactor 25, but none were ever built. The coalition further cautioned “spending federal resources pursuing such an unproven technology during the climate emergency while the costs of renewables continue to fall and timelines for commercial SMRs continue to be pushed further into the future is imprudent.”

A group of roughly 120 women in leadership roles around Canada took out an open letter to the Treasury Board in the Hill Times in September. In no uncertain terms, they asked the government to stop funding for SMRs and concentrate on other forms of renewable energy.

“We urge you to say ‘no’ to the nuclear industry that is asking for billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to subsidize a dangerous, highly polluting and expensive technology that we don’t need. Instead, put more money into renewables, energy efficiency and energy conservation. This will create many thousands of jobs and quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

The law association letter noted some proposed reactors would extract plutonium from irradiated fuel, creating concerns over weapons proliferation and new forms of radioactive waste “that are especially dangerous to manage.”

More recently, in March, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in the U.S. issued a report titled ‘Advanced’ Isn’t Always Better by Edwin Lyman, the director of nuclear power safety in the UCS Climate and Energy Program. Among the concerns its author raised was that molten salt reactors — the same type of SMR that Moltex in New Brunswick is working on — create unique challenges for nuclear security because of difficulties accounting for the nuclear material accurately as the liquid fuel flows through the reactor. 

Lyman cautions some designs with on-site, continuously operating fuel-reprocessing plants could “provide additional pathways for diverting or stealing nuclear-weapon-usable materials.”

At various points, the federal NDP, the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois have all also expressed opposition to funding SMRs. Elizabeth May, the former Green Party leader, previously said, “Renewables are far cheaper than nuclear without the toxic waste. Exploring an untried reactor is just another way of delaying climate action.”

In an email to Canada’s National Observer, the Department of National Resources says that it is carrying out a review, expected to be completed by the fall, to develop a new policy for radioactive waste management. The policy will cover both existing waste, and future waste, including that from “emerging new and innovative nuclear technologies, such as SMRs.”

The department also notes Canada remains committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, “including the full implementation of safeguards sent by the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

Back in New Brunswick, O’Donnell expresses frustration that the MOU the four provinces signed with the federal government binds the parties to promoting the economic and environmental benefits of nuclear. The MOU also expressly says part of its mandate is to “work co-operatively to positively influence the federal government to provide a clear, unambiguous statement that nuclear energy is a clean technology and is required as part of the climate change solution.”

O’Donnell calls that sales job indefensible given the governments are leaving it up to volunteer advocates to share information about alternatives such as solar and wind. “But instead, we just get silence or this barrage of nuclear sales material, and that’s really the frustrating thing.”

May 29, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What blackout? Home batteries power through Queensland coal plant calamity — RenewEconomy

While debate builds around whether big batteries could have saved the day in Queensland on Tuesday, the benefits of having a home battery during a coal plant explosion are obvious. The post What blackout? Home batteries power through Queensland coal plant calamity appeared first on RenewEconomy.

What blackout? Home batteries power through Queensland coal plant calamity — RenewEconomy

May 29, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An Online Course on War and The Environment: Spreading Knowledge Builds Power — limitless life

An Online Course on War and The Environment: Spreading Knowledge Builds Power By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, May 26, 2021 https://worldbeyondwar.org/an-online-course-on-war-and-the-environment-spreading-knowledge-builds-power/ Here’s a video from one of the facilitators lined up for World BEYOND War’s online course on War and the Environment which begins on June 7th, 2021: https://youtu.be/ialEfgofNGQ This course could not be more important. […]

An Online Course on War and The Environment: Spreading Knowledge Builds Power — limitless life

May 29, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

May 28 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “Electric Vehicle Tax Credit Bill From US Senate Finance Committee Looks Great” • Let’s look at how the bill that has moved through the US Senate Finance Committee. It extends the tax credit until 50% of vehicles are electric. It opens the tax credit up so people who owe little or nothing can […]

May 28 Energy News — geoharvey

May 29, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment