Radioactive Dump ~ call for submissions ~ open until October 22nd 2021
Radioactive Dump ~ call for submissions ~ open until October 22nd 2021
“As part of the process of declaring a site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, our department is collecting comment(s) from nominators of land and persons with a right or interest in the nominated land at Napandee, near Kimba in South Australia, as the preferred site for the proposed
facility.”
https://consult.industry.gov.au/arwa/nrwmf-site-declaration/
ENuFF[SA]
Office Admin
https://www.facebook.com/sanuclearfree/
Labor Party – State and National opinions on the plan for nuclear waste dump at Kimba, South Australia
Labor opinions on the waste dump (state and federal)
The Transcontinental Oct 2019 (Pt Augusta newspaper)
Deputy Opposition leader slams federal government’s nuclear waste site selection process
“We are utterly opposed to the process,” says Deputy Leader of the Opposition Susan Close regarding the current federal approach to a national radioactive waste facility in regional South Australia.
“We understand there is a need to do something with Australia’s domestic waste but they have gone about it so badly that they have put the community off.
“They haven’t done the due consideration that they ought to be doing of what the possibilities physically are.”
At a recent state conference, the South Australian Labor Party adopted a policy contesting the federal government’s site nomination and selection process.
They have called for full transparency, broad public input and best practice technical and consultative standards.
Ms Close condemned the federal government’s current approach to building a potential facility at sites in Kimba and Hawker.
“It is a federal issue but we just have a view about it that they have gone about it in an appalling way,” Ms Close said.
“They get to make the decision, we don’t have have any capacity even if we were in government to do anything, but what they have done is asked landholder if anyone wants to have this and left the Aboriginal community out.
“For some reason, the only three sites they are looking at are in South Australia which is very strange.”
ALP Media Release “Kimba site selection process flawed, waste dump plans must be scrapped. (Kimba is in Eddie Hughes’s electorate). Sept 15, 2020
Quotes attributable to Shadow Minister for Environment Susan Close
“This was a dreadful process from start to finish, resulting in fractures within the local community over the dump.
The SA ALP has committed to traditional owners having a right of veto over any nuclear waste sites, yet the federal government has shown no respect to the local Aboriginal people.”
Quotes attributable to Member for Giles Eddie Hughes
“This report clearly reflects that any mediation undertaken with the Barngarla people did not have any legal or political weight.
This has been a very divisive process from the beginning due to individual land owners nominating the sites.
Instead of rushing this quick fix by dumping in SA, the federal government should do the work on a long-term plan for the management of nuclear waste in Australia.
We clearly have an obligation to manage our domestic nuclear waste in a responsible way for the long term. This proposal falls far short of meeting that obligation.”
ALP Assistant Shadow Minister for the Environment Josh Wilson MP has stated in a speech “Social license missing from Coalition’s nuclear push” to federal Parliament (11 June 2020):
“But where is the evidence that there is any problem with the intermediate-level waste staying where it is, as it should do, until the government of Australia identifies and resources an appropriate permanent disposal site for intermediate-level waste? … But the claims that the government and government members in this place have made that intermediate-level storage needs to go to South Australia because there’s no room for it and that there are health and safety concerns about where it is currently are rubbish. And so it should stay where it is as a spur to the government to get on with the process, which currently hasn’t even started, of finding and resourcing a permanent-level disposal site. That is not occurring. … They need to immediately start and resource the process of a permanent disposal site for intermediate-level waste. They should commit to maintaining that waste where it is currently stored…”
ALP Senator Murray Watt stated in regard to a NRWMF Bill 2020 (Hansard p.20-21, 21 June 2021): “… Labor will act in accordance with scientific evidence and with full transparency, broad public input and best-practice technical and consultative standards, taking into account the views of traditional owners, to progress responsible radioactive waste management. … Labor is concerned that, to date, the government has been unable to provide any assurances on progress towards establishing a permanent facility for intermediate-level waste. We note that the community will expect a clear plan for a permanent facility to safely secure intermediate waste. It is hard to understand why, to date, so few resources have been allocated to the creation of a permanent, intermediate-level waste storage facility. In the absence of such resources or planning, the government should explain why the existing intermediate-level waste should be moved from one temporary storage facility to another. Labor will continue to hold the government to account and press for the department to explain how it plans to establish a permanent underground repository for waste of this nature.”
Labor Premier Mike Rann successfully fought the Howard government over a federal nuclear waste dump and Premier Jay Weatherill committed in 2017-18 to an Indigenous right of veto over any federal nuclear waste dump siting on their lands in SA. All South Australians have a right to a Say.
The SA legislation:
Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000
We have SA legislation prohibiting the building of a dump, but according to the constitution, federal legislation overrides state legislation whenever there is a conflict. I’ve asked both Peter Malinauskas and Susan Close if SA Parliament would need to overturn our state prohibition legislation before building a dump, but they don’t know. The legislation requires “A Public inquiry into the environmental and socio-economic impact of nuclear waste storage facility if a licence or authority to construct a facility is granted.” – we need to ask Labor to do all they can to make sure this happens.
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People re Hazardous Waste disposalThe “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People” (2007) Article 29 calls on States “to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous material shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free prior and informed consent.”
Senator Matt Canavan, and MP Ken O’Dowd ”happy to have a nuclear power station” in their backyard – (Gladstone Queensland).
Nats push to lift nuclear ban, senator happy to see plant in regional Queensland, Mandurah Mail , Jamieson Murphy , 11 Aug 21,
The Nationals will attempt to lift Australia’s ban on nuclear power, with a senior senator stating he’d be happy to see a nuclear power station in regional Queensland.
The Nationals senators will try to remove the prohibition with an amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, which is due to be debated as the government seeks to overhaul the regulations.
Queensland senator Matt Canavan said despite being a devisive issue, it was time to put the nuclear power option on the table……
“Myself and [Nationals] Member for Flynn, Ken O’Dowd, we’re happy to have one in our backyard.
“Gladstone, I think, would support a nuclear power station with open arms, because they want to keep their manufacturing jobs, their aluminium smelter, their refinery. There’s thousands of jobs there.”…….
Senator Canavan was asked if lifting the prohibition on nuclear power would be an olive branch to get the party to support a 2050 net-zero target.
“I don’t support a net-zero emissions target because it won’t change the environment and it will send thousands of Australian jobs to other countries,” Senator Canavan said.
The proposal appears unlikely to be supported by the Liberal Party.
Senator McMahon indicated the push to lift the ban on nuclear power was the policy of the Nationals senate team, rather than the party’s position.
This story Nats push to lift nuclear ban, senator happy to see plant in the regions first appeared on Farm Online. https://www.mandurahmail.com.au/story/7380478/nats-push-to-lift-nuclear-ban-senator-happy-to-see-plant-in-the-regions/?cs=9397&utm_source=website&utm_medium=index&utm_campaign=sidebar
Resource Minister Pitt’s intention to declare site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
Samantha Chard, General Manager, Australian Radioactive Waste Agency at Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resource, 12 Aug 21, The Hon Keith Pitt MP, has given notice that he intends to make a declaration under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (the Act). This declaration would confirm part of the land at Napandee as the site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF).
Under the Act, this consultation is a prescribed process with set timelines.
The intention is announced under section 18 of the Act. Persons with rights or interests are invited to comment on the proposed declaration by Friday 22 October 2021.
Comments can be made online at https://consult.industry.gov.au/arwa/nrwmf-site-declaration, and a comments form will also be available for download from the website. Comments can be posted to the address on the form.
Following the comments period, the Minister will consider any relevant comments in regard to his intended declaration. He may then ‘declare’ Napandee as site for the facility. Acquisition of the site to host the NRWMF by the Australian Government will occur at the time specified in that declaration.
Senator Matt Canavan all for nuclear energy; economists are not so sure
‘‘nuclear power is clearly a workable way of producing clean energy,” Senator Canavan said
Nationals senators call for end to ‘nonsensical’ nuclear power ban, SMH, By Mike Foley August 10, 2021 Nationals senators have called for Australia’s ban on nuclear power to be lifted so the technology can be explored as a clean energy source as the federal government faces increased pressure to set a deadline for net-zero emissions.
A Coalition-dominated parliamentary inquiry last year found the ban should be partially lifted but Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor said at the time the government had no plans to alter the moratorium, which has been in place since 1998.
Speaking on behalf of the Nationals Senate team on Tuesday, Queensland senator Matt Canavan said Australia’s “nonsensical prohibition” on nuclear power prevented investigation of the technology, which in time could become an economically viable source of emission-free power.
…….nuclear power is clearly a workable way of producing clean energy,” Senator Canavan said.A government source said the Nationals senators had raised the issue in Tuesday’s joint party room meeting but there were no plans for a change of policy at this point………..
Senator Canavan, who has been a vocal supporter of public funding for new coal plants, conceded nuclear power was not currently commercially attractive but said the moratorium should be lifted so the technology could be developed.
……..Tim Buckley, an analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said there was “no economic logic” to pursuing nuclear power, noting the only viable current technology came from China and Russia.
“The National party are pushing a technology that, if we look at Hinkley Point in the UK, involves a power price that is three to four times the price of renewables in Australia today,” he said. “The average development time of the Finnish, French and British for nuclear power plants is about 20 years.
“Do the Nats understand the only technology comes from China and Russia?”
Environment Minister Sussan Ley was contacted for comment. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nationals-senators-call-for-end-to-nonsensical-nuclear-power-ban-20210810-p58hix.html
National Party rallies around for the nuclear industry
We need to make nuclear case: Littleproud, Manning River Times, Georgie Moore , 10 Aug 21,
Australians might not be ready for nuclear power, but deputy Nationals leader David Littleproud thinks it’s a good idea.
Nationals senator Sam McMahon is trying to overturn Australia’s nuclear power ban through changes to a bill aimed at simplify environmental hoops projects need to jump through…….
He said politicians needed to make the case for change to instil public confidence.
“At this juncture, I don’t think we can give them that confidence,” Mr Littleproud said.
………. “The only realistic way to bring down carbon emissions in our nation is to use our natural resources and move down a nuclear path.”
As it stands, the government is a vote short of getting its environmental approvals bill through the Senate.
It had been due for debate on Wednesday before being taken off the final draft of the Senate program.
Resources Minister Keith Pitt told parliament the environment reforms would help combat “green lawfare” against coal and gas projects.
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson flagged her party would give the government two of the three votes it needed.
Centre Alliance senator Stirling Griff, and independents Rex Patrick and Jacqui Lambie, are all understood to remain opposed to the bill.
They argue an independent watchdog and tougher environment standards are required before other changes could be considered.
Senator Lambie has questioned why Australia didn’t replace coal-fired power with nuclear to achieve emissions reduction goals. https://www.manningrivertimes.com.au/story/7380924/we-need-to-make-nuclear-case-littleproud/
Trumped up: IPCC confirms Morrison is fiddling while the country burns — RenewEconomy
Australia should be a global leader in clean technology solutions – but it does not have clear national energy policy, or clear targets. The post Trumped up: IPCC confirms Morrison is fiddling while the country burns appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Trumped up: IPCC confirms Morrison is fiddling while the country burns — RenewEconomy
Utah Taxpayers Association is very wary of Small Nuclear Reactors
Imagine you picked up a gallon of milk that was labeled at $4, but by the time you made it to the cash register the price had gone up. Worse still, there was an automatic agreement that forced you to buy with no guarantee that the lid would ever open or that the price wouldn’t increase again by the time you had to pay. That’s essentially the situation in which UAMPS is putting municipalities.
Imagine you picked up a gallon of milk that was labeled at $4, but by the time you made it to the cash register the price had gone up. Worse still, there was an automatic agreement that forced you to buy with no guarantee that the lid would ever open or that the price wouldn’t increase again by the time you had to pay. That’s essentially the situation in which UAMPS is putting municipalities.
Utah cities shouldn’t gamble on nuclear power https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/8/11/22620772/utah-cities-shouldnt-gamble-with-taxpayer-funds-on-modular-nuclear-power-plant
An Idaho project is a financial risk that is best borne by the private sector. By Rusty Cannon Aug 11, 2021, ”………….. one of our critical missions is to protect taxpayers when it comes to the use of public funds, and we believe strongly that the taxpayers and communities of Utah should not act as venture capitalists for risky bets.
The bet that’s on the table now for Utah municipalities is nuclear. Specifically, it’s a type of nuclear called “small modular,” and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) is recruiting towns and communities around the West to pay for it. The project, if it happens, would be located in Idaho.
Last fall, seven Utah cities from Logan to Lehi wisely withdrew their support for the UAMPS nuclear project due to financial risks that their residents should not be asked to accept. But many municipalities, such as Brigham City, Hyrum, Hurricane, and Washington City, are still gambling with their taxpayers’ dollars.
If modular nuclear power is ready for market, let the private sector show it by putting up its money. Governments ought to stay out of it, particularly when risking public funds.
The participation commitments UAMPS has been getting from Utah communities to buy the power come with required upfront payments from residents for a product that is full of uncertainty. The developer — Oregon-based NuScale — hasn’t built a plant like this before, its design keeps changing, and it’s nearly a decade away from even being potentially operational.
While we still believe the project is risky and that municipalities should withdraw, any investment of public dollars must be done in the open with public scrutiny. Sadly, the information exchange between UAMPS and its potential payers has been opaque. The public receives only a trickle of information, and it’s vague at best.
When we do see information, it’s troubling. For example, the project’s budget has ballooned from an initial $3.1 billion to a more recent estimate of $6.1 billion. It was only recently uncovered that the company that was going to operate the plant, Energy Northwest, backed out in March.
The financial sand is shifting in other ways, as well. In late June, UAMPS suddenly decided to reduce the number of modules at the power plant by half because they’ve struggled to get more communities to commit. That led to a hike in the power price that UAMPS had been promising, putting still-participating municipalities in a bind.
Imagine you picked up a gallon of milk that was labeled at $4, but by the time you made it to the cash register the price had gone up. Worse still, there was an automatic agreement that forced you to buy with no guarantee that the lid would ever open or that the price wouldn’t increase again by the time you had to pay. That’s essentially the situation in which UAMPS is putting municipalities.
Plenty of Utah city council members have listened to their constituents and said “thanks but no thanks.” Bountiful, Kaysville, Murray, Lehi and Heber were some of the largest subscribers to the modular nuclear proposal, but have since bowed out.
However, other communities remain officially interested in this particular power project, and are keeping it in their shopping cart so far. If you reside in these communities, pay attention and watch your wallet. There may still be time to withdraw from the project.
Utah municipalities should remain conservative watchdogs of tax dollars. Say yes to prudent and transparent use of public money. Say no to unproven technology and murky promises that keep shifting. At this point modular nuclear power is a venture, not a product. So let private venture capital come in and pay for it, not Utah taxpayers.
Rusty Cannon is President of the Utah Taxpayers Association
National Party renews its push for nuclear energy, wants to change the Environment Protection Act
Nationals stir up uranium debate: ‘We need to move down a nuclear path’ Stockhead Eddy Sunarto 10 Aug 21,” …….. Speaking on the Sky News channel, deputy Nationals leader David Littleproud has called for a revival of Australia’s nuclear industry, saying that politicians need to make the case for an eventual nuclear energy use in the country.
Littleproud, who’s also the Minister of Agriculture, told Sky that politicians need to have a mature, broad conversation to convince the public of the need to lift the ban on nuclear energy.
His comments were backed by Nationals senator Sam McMahon, who wants the nuclear ban to be overturned through a bill aimed at streamlining environmental approvals.
The bill in question is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999, which currently restricts uranium mining to some degree but prohibits nuclear plants altogether.
“The only realistic way to bring down carbon emissions in our nation is to use our natural resources and move down a nuclear path,” McMahon said………. https://stockhead.com.au/energy/nationals-stir-up-uranium-debate-we-need-to-move-down-a-nuclear-path/
Why Are We Still Building Nuclear Weapons? Follow the Money
Why Are We Still Building Nuclear Weapons? Follow the Money, Forbes, William Hartung, 11 Aug 21,
The FY 2022 Pentagon budget proposal includes billions of dollars for new nuclear delivery vehicles, with a handful of prime contractors as the primary beneficiaries. For example, Northrop Grumman’s NOC+0.9% twelve largest subcontractors for its new ICBM include some of the nation’s largest defense companies, including Lockheed Martin LMT+0.3%, General Dynamics GD+0.8%, L3Harris, Aerojet Rocketdyne AJRD+0.2%, Honeywell, Bechtel, and the Collins Aerospace division of Raytheon RTX+1.1% Technologies. Other beneficiaries of the funding of new nuclear delivery vehicles include Raytheon (a nuclear-armed cruise missile), General Dynamics (ballistic missile submarines), Lockheed Martin (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), and Northrop Grumman – again – for the new nuclear-armed bombers.
This month marks the 76th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, events that resulted in the immediate deaths of well over 100,000 people and underscored the devastating consequences of building, deploying, and using nuclear weapons. Those attacks should have served as a wake-up call on the need to control and eliminate these potential world-ending weapons, but determined efforts by scientists, political leaders, policy advocates, and grassroots advocates around the world have yet to abolish them……………
the international community, under the leadership of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), has created and brought into force the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which has been signed by 86 nations and ratified by 55 of them. This is an historic accomplishment, but the real culprits – the major nuclear weapons states that possess the vast bulk of the world’s nuclear weapons – have yet to sign onto the measure.
The United States maintains an active nuclear stockpile of roughly 4,000 nuclear weapons, including over 1,500 deployed warheads. Russia’s stockpile is comparable, at roughly 4,400, while China follows with roughly 300 strategic nuclear warheads. Despite its considerably smaller arsenal, recent revelations regarding China’s construction of new silos for long-range nuclear missiles are cause for real concern as they raise the risk of accelerating the nuclear arms race at great risk to the future of the planet. These developments demand dialogue to roll back the production of new nuclear weapons systems, leading to reductions in the size of global arsenals and the ultimate elimination of this existential threat.
The continued development and deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is of particular concern. As former Secretary of Defense William Perry has noted, ICBMs are “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world” because a president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch them upon warning of a nuclear attack, increasing the possibility of an accidental nuclear war based on a false alarm.
Given all of the above, why is the United States still building nuclear weapons, more than seven decades after the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The U.S. is not alone in building a new generation of nuclear weapons – Russia and China are doing so as well. But the Pentagon’s 30-year plan to build new nuclear-armed bombers, missiles, and submarines – along with new nuclear warheads to go with them at a cost of up to $2 trillion – is the height of folly and an unnecessary, grave risk to the lives of current and future generations. A major reason for this misguided policy can be summed up in a phrase – there is money to be made in perpetuating the nuclear arms race.
The FY 2022 Pentagon budget proposal includes billions of dollars for new nuclear delivery vehicles, with a handful of prime contractors as the primary beneficiaries. For example, Northrop Grumman’s NOC+0.9% twelve largest subcontractors for its new ICBM include some of the nation’s largest defense companies, including Lockheed Martin LMT+0.3%, General Dynamics GD+0.8%, L3Harris, Aerojet Rocketdyne AJRD+0.2%, Honeywell, Bechtel, and the Collins Aerospace division of Raytheon RTX+1.1% Technologies. Other beneficiaries of the funding of new nuclear delivery vehicles include Raytheon (a nuclear-armed cruise missile), General Dynamics (ballistic missile submarines), Lockheed Martin (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), and Northrop Grumman – again – for the new nuclear-armed bomber.
Additional recipients of nuclear weapons-related funding are the firms that run the nuclear warhead complex. Major contractors include Honeywell and Bechtel, which run key facilities for the development and production of nuclear warheads.
Nuclear weapons contractors spend millions of dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying efforts every year in their efforts to shape nuclear weapons policy and spending. While not all of this spending is devoted to lobbying on nuclear weapons programs, these expenditures are indicative of the political clout they can bring to bear on Congress as needed to sustain and expand the budgets for their nuclear-related programs.
The major nuclear weapons contractors made a total of over $119 million in campaign contributions from 2012 to 2020, including over $31 million in 2020 alone. The companies spent $57.9 million on lobbying in 2020 and employed 380 lobbyists among them.
The only way to be truly safe from nuclear weapons is to eliminate them altogether, as called for in the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As noted above, the major nuclear powers have yet to sign onto the treaty but pressing them to do so should be a central component of efforts to rein in nuclear dangers.
It’s time that we stopped allowing special interest lobbying and corporate profits to stand in the way of a more sensible nuclear policy. The future of humanity depends on it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhartung/2021/08/10/why-are-we-still-building-nuclear-weapons—-follow-the-money/?sh=442b7ad15888
New ”Natrium” nuclear reactors – a very risky gamble.
A July 2021 Foreign Affairs article reports that in the past sixty years eight countries have spent $100 billion to produce sodium cooled fast reactors such as the one proposed for Wyoming. All have failed. The money’s spent and the lights are out.
While the Natrium design posits less risk of a meltdown, the sodium coolant is under high pressure and is explosive in the event of any breach in the containment area. And while Natrium plants produce less radioactive waste than traditional nuclear plants, there’s still the necessity to safely and permanently store this waste. How much will it cost? World Nuclear Industry Status Report’s editor Mycle Schneider says, “No one knows…because there is no functioning permanent storage facility.” Nowhere.
How much power are we talking about anyway? Writing for Canary Media, Eric Wesoff reported that in 2020, 2.4 gigawatts of new nuclear power plants were installed worldwide while there were 100 gigawatts of new solar and 60 gigawatts of new wind power generators. Meanwhile, old nuclear plants close—Indian Power in New York, Diablo Canyon in California, Exelon’s Byron and Dresden plants in Illinois. What do we do with decommissioned nuclear plants? A cooling tower in Germany has become a climbing wall.
Romtvedt: Proposal for nuclear power calls for caution https://trib.com/opinion/columns/romtvedt-proposal-for-nuclear-power-calls-for-caution/article_ecb135f0-1378-5728-9992-abd11b681ba4.html, David Romtvedt, Aug 10, 2021
In conjunction with PacifiCorp, Rocky Mountain Power’s parent company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway Energy, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, Inc; and TerraPower, a nuclear reactor design company founded by Bill Gates, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon has announced his support for the construction of a nuclear reactor demonstration plant in Wyoming. According to Berkshire Hathaway, the project is intended to “validate the design, construction and operational features” of TerraPower’s Natrium nuclear plant design which uses liquid sodium as a coolant rather than water.
Governor Gordon believes that Natrium offers a safe, reliable solution to Wyoming’s economic woes, saying, “I am thrilled to see Wyoming selected for this demonstration pilot project as our great state is the perfect place for this type of innovative utility facility and our experienced workforce is looking forward to the jobs this project will provide.”
So the benefits of the nuclear plant are said to be increased economic security and diminished environmental risk than with other forms of nuclear power plants. But it’s not so clear. Both in construction and operation, Natrium nuclear plants require uniquely skilled workers employing specialized materials and building techniques. Other economic issues include the temporary nature of construction work, long lead times for safety and licensing reviews (Natrium is not licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), and diminished severance tax revenues as a result of the shift from coal to nuclear.
There’s also the fuel—Natrium uses high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU). Power Magazine reports that there is no current supply of HALEU and that it will take at least seven years with sufficient demand to develop a fuel cycle infrastructure. Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientist cautions that Russia is currently the only source of suitable fuel. In whatever quantity, the fuel is not likely to come from Wyoming uranium mines.
After construction there’s generation. World Nuclear Industry Status Report has recorded the changing costs of electric generation per kilowatt hour (in US cents) between 2009 and 2020. They are: solar—35.9 to 3.7, down 90%; wind—13.5 to 4.0, down 70%; gas—8.3 to 5.9, down 29%; coal—11.1 to 11.2, up 1%; and nuclear 12.3 to 16.3, up 33%. Nuclear is the most expensive way to generate electricity.
And time—the Wyoming proposal projects seven years to completion. Since no new nuclear power plant with a license application submitted since 1975 has yet begun operation, we may question the Wyoming timeline. More time equals more cost. Georgia Power’s Vogtle nuclear plants are years behind schedule with costs having risen from $14 billion to over $25 billion. But it may not matter as Georgia Power can charge cost overruns to its customers—the more the project is over budget, the more the company profits. In Florida, Duke Power, after seeing a cost increase from $5 billion to $22 billion, abandoned a Natrium nuclear project after passing $800 million dollars in excess costs to ratepayers.
A July 2021 Foreign Affairs article reports that in the past sixty years eight countries have spent $100 billion to produce sodium cooled fast reactors such as the one proposed for Wyoming. All have failed. The money’s spent and the lights are out.
While the Natrium design posits less risk of a meltdown, the sodium coolant is under high pressure and is explosive in the event of any breach in the containment area. And while Natrium plants produce less radioactive waste than traditional nuclear plants, there’s still the necessity to safely and permanently store this waste. How much will it cost? World Nuclear Industry Status Report’s editor Mycle Schneider says, “No one knows…because there is no functioning permanent storage facility.” Nowhere.
I’m guessing that Governor Gordon’s decision was driven in part by his hope to protect the lives and livelihoods of Wyoming workers. But generating radioactive waste without a procedure for safe permanent storage of that waste will protect no one—not unemployed coal miners, not me, not the governor.
How much power are we talking about anyway? Writing for Canary Media, Eric Wesoff reported that in 2020, 2.4 gigawatts of new nuclear power plants were installed worldwide while there were 100 gigawatts of new solar and 60 gigawatts of new wind power generators. Meanwhile, old nuclear plants close—Indian Power in New York, Diablo Canyon in California, Exelon’s Byron and Dresden plants in Illinois. What do we do with decommissioned nuclear plants? A cooling tower in Germany has become a climbing wall.
The questions loom. If I were a betting man, given initial costs, cost overruns, lost tax revenue, the increasing viability of renewables, the history of nuclear failure, and the health and safety hazards surrounding nuclear waste, I’d pause before I put my money on nuclear power. Not being a betting man, I wouldn’t consider it.
David Romtvedt is a writer and musician from Buffalo, Wyoming. A former activist with the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, he serves as a board member for the Powder River Basin Resource Council.
Joe Biden’s Infrastructure Bill gives $50 billion to bail out the nuclear industry
Nuclear Power Bailout In The Infrastructure Bill https://www.wortfm.org/nuclear-power-bailout-in-the-infrastructure-bill/
AUGUST 11, 2021 BY 8 O’CLOCK BUZZ The bi-partisan infrastructure bill just passed by the U.S. Senate has allotted $50 billion over the next 10 years to bolster the dying nuclear power industry, according to Hannah Smay, Digital Organizer of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. And the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill promises even more, fails to create jobs, reduce carbon, and the Band-Aid approach interferes with the transition to clean energy.
“Solar tax” optional as networks told to make grid solar and battery friendly — RenewEconomy
New rules mean solar homes will need to pay to access the best feed-in-tariffs and avoid curtailment. The post “Solar tax” optional as networks told to make grid solar and battery friendly appeared first on RenewEconomy.
“Solar tax” optional as networks told to make grid solar and battery friendly — RenewEconomy
Bad faith: Morrison blaming Global South for climate change is beyond belief — RenewEconomy
Scott Morrison and Angus Taylor are blaming the developing world for the world’s climate problem. That approach is both ignorant and cruel. The post Bad faith: Morrison blaming Global South for climate change is beyond belief appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Bad faith: Morrison blaming Global South for climate change is beyond belief — RenewEconomy
Setsuko Thurlow Rose honors the legacy of a Hiroshima survivor and abolition campaigner — IPPNW peace and health blog
The Setsuko Thurlow rose In the year that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons enters in force, a new variety of rose will be planted in Spain. The Setsuko Thurlow Rose, a rose of hope, will be planted on the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, September 26, 2021, in […]
Setsuko Thurlow Rose honors the legacy of a Hiroshima survivor and abolition campaigner — IPPNW peace and health blog
1.This month.
The Road to War brings a sharp focus to why it is not in Australia’s best interest to be dragged into a war with China which will almost inevitably go nuclear very quickly. The filmmaker has interviewed some of Australia’s senior foreign policy analysts who have vast experience behind them in analysing what really is going on here as the United States rattles its sabres with China. And sets us up to be its proxy, like the poor Ukranians have been fed into the Meatgrinder. So America can remain the Top Dog. The Road to War reveals how the United States through its spy base at Pine Gap and by stationing six nuclear capable B52 bombers in the Top End (without permission from the traditional owners) is making Australia a prime nuclear target if the current war of words suddenly melts down into full scale war.
The Road to War shows the implicit connection between Carbon emissions (the US military uses a whopping 70% of America’s annual petroleum to move its armies and vast War Machine around the globe to its 800+ military bases..but under a loophole wangled at Kyoto, the US military does not have to report its C02 annual emissions). The Road to War starts screening at selected cities and regional centres in March. See the trailer end for details.
Antinuclear 