The week in nuclear news
A bit of good news – We can restore the climate – getting past climate despair. Tasmania has become one of the first parts of the world to become not just carbon neutral but carbon negative .
Coronavirus. Global, new cases and deaths are declining, but still increasing in some countries.
AUSTRALIA.
Change of government would present ‘great opportunity’ in fight to free Julian Assange. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8zYQp3rrG8
After 43-nation war council, Australia to send howitzers, ammunition to Ukraine. Anzac Day and the conflict-loving neocons. Hysteria over the Solomon Islands-China security pact.
Nuclear submarines in an Adelaide shipyard – sitting ducks for a disastrous terrorist attack: conventional submarines – cheaper, safer. Unions NSW opposes nuclear powered submarines and the AUKUS treaty. Various groups oppose plan for nuclear submarine base – ”a military target” at Port Kembla, New South Wales.
Teals and Greens are the only political groups focused on the main issue . Ratings agency says Morrison climate policies “obscure, unclear and confusing”.
Greens propose levy on coal exports to drive coal phase-out within a decade .
New Murray-Darling Basin Authority boss fails to mention environment in all-staff memo
Low emissions, lower prices: South Australia’s remarkable shift to wind and solar .
Renewables to be “the new baseload” by 2030, says McKinsey 2022 Global Energy Perspective/
INTERNATIONAL
Russia and the West are closer to nuclear war than they were during the Cuban Missile Crisis, warns Nikita Khrushchev’s daughter – 60 years after her father backed down from Armageddon.
NATO allies marching in lockstep: U.S., Canadian defense chiefs meet twice in a week.
NATO’s national armaments directors discuss Ukraine bonanza
The 1983 Military Drill That Nearly Sparked Nuclear War With the Soviets. U.S. sees no threat of Russia using nuclear weapons despite rhetoric- official. Huge solar storm once almost triggered nuclear war between USA and Russia.
Climate change ‘already’ raising risk of virus spread between mammals.
Climate change is increasing the likelihood of another pandemic, researchers warn.
Solar beats nuclear at many potential settlement sites on Mars. Photovoltaics vs. nuclear power on Mars.
Renewables to be “the new baseload” by 2030, says McKinsey 2022 Global Energy Perspective.
UKRAINE. International Atomic Energy Agency very concerned at dangers at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear complex. Despite deteriorating situation, Ukrainian parliament still insisting on NATO accession. IAEA probing Ukraine report that a missile flew over a nuclear power plant. The USA has not been able to confirm the allegations that Russia used chemical weapons in Ukraine.
Unions NSW opposes nuclear powered submarines and the AUKUS treaty.
Paul Keating ,Branch Secretary, Maritime Union of Australia, Sydney Branch, 26 Apr 22,
Unions NSW declares its total opposition to the reckless announcement by Scott Morrison that Australia would be developing nuclear-powered submarines as part of a military alliance with the US and UK.
At a time when Morrison should have been pursuing vaccination supplies and providing maximum support to our health system and millions of people in lockdown, he has been pursuing secret military deals. The deal will continue to escalate unnecessary conflict with China. Workers have already been impacted with seafarers stranded on coal ships and some trades shut down.
Extraordinary sums of money have been wasted with the previous submarine contract scrapped only five years after it was signed. That contract was worth $90 billion – nuclear submarines will cost much more.
Only six countries in the world have nuclear submarines, and they all have nuclear power stations. Advocates for nuclear power and nuclear weapons have been emboldened. The submarines will use highly enriched uranium ideal for nuclear weapons.
The Australian government has repeatedly tried to set up nuclear waste dumps on First Nations land. This will intensify that pressure.
The billions wasted on submarines should be spent on:
Building an Australian strategic shipping fleet in Adelaide that could operate in cabotage and international trades;
· Building renewable energy and offshore wind turbines to ensure we prevent global heating from exceeding 1.5°C;
· Raising Jobseeker payments to well above poverty levels;
· Pay increases for health workers and investments in our health systems;
· Pay increases for teachers and investments in public schools to make them covid-safe;
· Investing in firefighting capacity and ensuring we are ready for the next bushfire season.
Workers have no interest in war with China or any other country. Every effort should be made to pursue peaceful relations.
Unions NSW stands in solidarity with workers in all countries in opposing war and wasteful environmentally harmful military spending.
We pledge our opposition to oppose the development of nuclear submarines in Australia, and the development of any other nuclear industry.
Various groups oppose plan for nuclear submarine base – ”a military target” at Port Kembla, New South Wales
Planes, trains, automobiles … and nuclear subs: the local issues at play in the federal election
Guardian Stephanie Tran and Khaled Al Khawaldeh, Mon 2 May 2022
………….Submarine base in Port Kembla
Max, 26, works for a non-profit and lives in the electorate of Cunningham, held by retiring Labor MP Sharon Bird. He is worried about the prospect of a base being built in Port Kembla to house the future nuclear-powered submarines to be built under the Aukus agreement.
“This announcement was made with no consultation with the community, no proposal for consultation moving forward and a potential for my home to have a giant target on its back,” he said.
The Wollongong suburb, 100km south of Sydney, was flagged by the Coalition as the potential home of its new nuclear-powered submarine base. However, experts have raised concerns that the base could endanger the community by making it a military target, and some in the community are wary over the safety of the submarines’ nuclear reactors.
Alison Byrnes, the Labor candidate for Cunningham, said that if elected she would ensure that the community was consulted on the decision.
“I will make it a priority to seek a detailed briefing from the minister for defence on this plan, as well as Defence’s proposed assessment process,” she said.
The Liberal party emphasised the economic benefits of the project, but did not address the community concerns……..
Greens candidate Dylan Green said he did not want to see his community “getting caught up in a nuclear arms race”.
“Our government should be strengthening diplomatic ties with neighbouring states, not inviting conflict by investing in warships with primarily offensive capabilities,” he said.
Alexis Garnaut-Miller, from the Australian Citizens party, was “absolutely and resolutely opposed to this nonsensical proposal of building nuclear submarines or any development of nuclear submarine presence in Port Kembla”…… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/02/planes-trains-automobiles-and-nuclear-subs-the-local-issues-at-play-in-the-federal-election
Australia is No1 on Transparency’s list of countries with developing public sector corruption
9 COUNTRIES TO WATCH ON THE 2021 CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX , Transparency International 1 May 22
Troubling signs and key opportunities that can make – or break – the fight against corruption
What is a ‘country to watch’ on the CPI?
In this annual watch-list published alongside the CPI, Transparency International flags countries that need closer monitoring and attention in the coming year………
1 AUSTRALIA
Australia (CPI score: 73) is one of the world’s most significant decliners, having dropped 12 points since 2012 to hit a record low this year. Its deteriorating score indicates systemic failings in tackling public sector corruption. Despite public calls and previous promises, last year Australia missed a landmark opportunity to establish a national anti-corruption agency with broad powers to investigate corruption………………………………… https://www.transparency.org/en/blog/cpi-2021-corruption-watch-list-australia-austria-el-salvador-kazakhstan
Albo finds his mojo in push for green metals and EV batteries — RenewEconomy
Albanese pitches vision of a green resources sector and revitalised manufacturing to contrast Morrison’s embrace of fossil fuels. The post Albo finds his mojo in push for green metals and EV batteries appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Albo finds his mojo in push for green metals and EV batteries — RenewEconomy
Where will Connecticut’s nuclear waste go? Nuclear submarines’ waste is a particular problem (Australia take note)
Connecticut has been living more than half a century with what was supposed to have been temporary spent fuel storage.
On any day since the mid 1950s, there might be multiple reactors in or around the Thames River, welded into the nuclear powered submarines stationed at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Groton
The Navy won’t discuss how it disposes of its spent nuclear waste.
It’s in question as the state pushes toward a green future, By Edmund H. Mahony, Hartford Courant, May 01, 2022, The federal government is jump-starting its long-stalled search for a place to store the tons of spent nuclear fuel piling up in Connecticut and other states.
…… The U.S. Department of Energy is reviewing responses to a request for information it issued to nuclear industry stakeholders late last year as a first step in another attempt to resolve one of the thorniest challenges of the nuclear age: how and where to store the highly-radioactive, spent uranium that is the waste product of nuclear energy production.
The state legislature this session approved a bill requiring all electric power consumed in Connecticut to be produced from carbon free sources by 2040. Another bill, written with smaller, better reactors in mind, is pending. It would lift a state moratorium on new nuclear power production — a moratorium enacted decades ago over the same concerns about the state’s spent fuel stockpiles — but limit new production to the Millstone nuclear complex in Waterford, where Dominion Energy has what was intended to be a temporary nuclear waste storage facility.
The country’s inability to figure out what to do with waste stockpiles has become an impediment for nuclear-generating states like Connecticut…… That has power industry and private capital looking toward the development of a new generation of smaller [really?] safer, more efficient [really?] nuclear reactors — reactors that will continue to produce waste that needs to be disposed of someplace safe.
……………………….. “Disposal is absolutely an issue,” State Sen. Norm Needleman said. “That is why this is limited to a site that is a going plant today where they already are dealing with that problem. I would not at this moment support any expansion until the Department of Energy finds someplace. If you are going to build nuclear power plants and you are going to be siting 200 piles of nuclear waste, it is better to have it buried 2,000 feet below ground someplace, rather than having it spread all over.”
……………………… Connecticut has been living more than half a century with what was supposed to have been temporary spent fuel storage.
On any day since the mid 1950s, there might be multiple reactors in or around the Thames River, welded into the nuclear powered submarines stationed at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Groton, or just down river at the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics where the ships are built. For years the Navy operated an experimental reactor in Windsor.
Beginning in the late 1960s, four commercial reactors produced power in Connecticut — one at the Connecticut Yankee plant on Haddam Neck, a peninsula stretching into the lower Connecticut River, and three on Millstone Point at the east end of Long Island Sound.
Two of the three Millstone reactors remain operational. Connecticut Yankee has been closed and decommissioned.
The Navy won’t discuss how it disposes of its spent nuclear waste. Because the federal government has not been able to find a politically acceptable commercial disposal solution, every bit of radioactive uranium expended in the production of commercial power in Connecticut remains under guard in what are designed as impregnable — but temporary — storage containers at the Millstone and Connecticut Yankee sites……………………………………
as much as 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel continues to pile up and remain stranded at what were supposed to be temporary sites around the country.
On Haddam Neck, there are 43 enormous concrete and steel storage casks containing radioactive material on the site of the decommissioned Connecticut Yankee plant. At the Millstone site in Waterford, waste is divided between a storage pool and 47 storage modules. Plant operator Dominion Energy says it has the capacity to store a total of 135 modules.
The storage costs, which involve protecting the spent fuel from hazards running from terrorist attacks to natural disasters, is enormous. The cost at Connecticut Yankee is about $10 million a year — at a plant that shut down in 1996 because it was no longer cost effective after 28 years of operation.
The federal government and, ultimately, taxpayers are picking up the cost. The law that was to make Yucca Mountain a national repository carried a provision obligating the Department of Energy to remove and store spent fuel from commercial reactors beginning in 1998. Without a repository, the department cannot meet its obligation. Plant operators sued, and the government has been held responsible for incurred storage costs.
There are intangible costs to temporary storage, too…………………………….
Loy Yang A coal plant outage expected to cost AGL at least $73 million — RenewEconomy
AGL says it will take a big hit to profits due to latest Loy Yang A coal outage, while market grapples with failing reliability and higher costs. The post Loy Yang A coal plant outage expected to cost AGL at least $73 million appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Loy Yang A coal plant outage expected to cost AGL at least $73 million — RenewEconomy
Massive big battery and solar farm proposed for NSW coal country — RenewEconomy
Australian renewables developer Maoneng unveils plans for a massive four-hour battery and solar farm in the New South Wales Upper Hunter region. The post Massive big battery and solar farm proposed for NSW coal country appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Massive big battery and solar farm proposed for NSW coal country — RenewEconomy
Fortescue urges joint “Green Pilbara” vision of giga-scale wind, solar and hydrogen — RenewEconomy
Fortescue Future Industries hints at joining forces with other parties to create a single vision for giga-scale renewable energy projects. The post Fortescue urges joint “Green Pilbara” vision of giga-scale wind, solar and hydrogen appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Fortescue urges joint “Green Pilbara” vision of giga-scale wind, solar and hydrogen — RenewEconomy
Morrison inaction, Ukraine conflict weigh on clean energy investment — RenewEconomy
Clean energy investors say ongoing frustrations with Australian policy compounded by impacts of Russia invasion of Ukraine. The post Morrison inaction, Ukraine conflict weigh on clean energy investment appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Morrison inaction, Ukraine conflict weigh on clean energy investment — RenewEconomy
“God doesn’t think he’s Angus Taylor:” Forrest fires new salvo — RenewEconomy
Andrew Forrest fires another salvo at energy minister Angus Taylor as he and Mike Cannon-Brookes push the case for green energy. The post “God doesn’t think he’s Angus Taylor:” Forrest fires new salvo appeared first on RenewEconomy.
“God doesn’t think he’s Angus Taylor:” Forrest fires new salvo — RenewEconomy
Britain’s very wrong turn in energy policy
At least Rishi Sunak would appear to have recognised all this nuclear nonsense for the massive con trick it is. As far as the Treasury is concerned, a few hundred million to prop up Rolls-Royce, and a couple of billion to keep the prospect of Sizewell C alive – that’s acceptable, it would seem. Beyond that, from the Chancellor’s perspective, lies one vast funding black hole. Not least because of nuclear waste.
Courtesy of the mainstream media’s cosy relationship with the nuclear industry, we hardly ever hear about this. But the Treasury writes a cheque to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority of around £2.5bn every year – to deal with the legacy of our earlier nuclear investments in terms of waste management and decommissioning. The price tag just for cleaning up Sellafield has now risen to an astonishing £97bn! On top of that, the anticipated cost of an underground storage facility to house the high-level waste for thousands of years has now risen to as much as £53bn – according to the Government’s own figures. That’s the cost of old nuclear. It will be no different with any new nuclear.
Why a nuclear power policy is clearly the road not to take
Wrong turn — Beyond Nuclear International The establishment’s obsession with nuclear power just won’t die,
more https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3984916370
By Jonathon Porritt 1 May 22,
This is absolutely the right time for a new Energy Strategy. Unfortunately, we’ve got absolutely the wrong politicians in charge of it. In the UK, the combination of Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak all but guarantees that the new Energy Security Strategy will fail on most counts.
– In Boris Johnson, we have a careless showman, drawn unerringly to ‘big ticket’ announcements, groomed by a nuclear industry that knows exactly how to play to these personality defects.
– In Rishi Sunak, we have a man so detached from the reality of most people’s lives that the prospect of five million UK citizens finding themselves in fuel poverty by the end of the year means literally nothing.
Careless Johnson and callous Sunak is a devastating double-act – with the inconsequential figure of Kwasi Kwarteng (UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) lurking around to pick up the pieces.
There will, of course, be some welcome commitments in the new UK Strategy, particularly on solar and offshore wind, with a hugely encouraging pipeline of new developments in both now underpinning the UK’s decarbonisation strategy. Onshore wind may well get more encouragement than in the past, but the aesthetic sensibilities of Tory Nimbies will still matter more to Johnson and Sunak than the opportunity to ramp up the single most cost-effective source of renewable electricity – coming in at an astonishing 20% of the cost of new nuclear! Yet again, those ‘hard-working families’ Johnson constantly refers to will pay the price for this appalling policy failure.
The UK establishment’s obsession with nuclear power just won’t die. Boris Johnson is heading off down a well-worn path. Margaret Thatcher promised to build a nuclear reactor every year for ten years at the start of her time in office. In 2006, Tony Blair vowed to bring back nuclear power ‘with a vengeance’. David Cameron’s Government identified opportunities for a massive expansion of nuclear.
However, apart from Sizewell B (which came online in 1995) and EDF’s grotesquely expensive monster emerging at Hinkley Point C, there’s nothing to show for all that overblown nuclear enthusiasm. The industry blames this 40-year failure on everyone else – including a generation of anti-nuclear campaigners. In truth, the blame lies entirely with the industry itself, mendaciously promoting outdated, dangerous, increasingly expensive technologies.
Johnson’s big nuclear bets will almost certainly include big reactors at both Sizewell C and Wylfa, and as many as possible of the so-called ‘small reactors’ being pushed by Rolls-Royce. Regardless of the hype, the economic reality of all of these bets is dire:
Sizewell C – with the Chinese out of the picture, the Government will be looking to its new Regulated Asset Base funding model (with consumers having to pay up front) to persuade private investors to get on board. Backed (so far) by the promise of £1.75bn of taxpayers’ money.
Wylfa – so much effort has gone into trying to get a new reactor at Wylfa over the line over the last ten years! All to no avail – primarily for economic reasons. Any renewed ‘firm commitment’ for Wylfa will mean as little as all previous commitments.
Rolls-Royce’s Small Modular Reactors – apparently, Johnson is particularly excited by this prospect, even though they’re not even remotely small (at 470MW, they’re actually as big as the first generation of Magnox reactors here in the UK!), and no-one has ever done modular construction (offsite in factory settings) before now.
And none of these ‘exciting prospects’ will give Johnson (let alone hard-pressed UK consumers) one single electron in terms of helping to meet the Government’s target to have carbon-free electricity by 2035.
Continue readingMay 1 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Batteries Included, Thanks To Tesla” • Bloomberg New Energy Finance believes that the energy storage decade has arrived. BNEF forecasts there will be 1 TWh of batteries installed around the world by 2030. This may prove to be a conservative estimate in the light of some of the comments Elon Musk made recently […]
May 1 Energy News — geoharvey
Russia and the West are closer to nuclear war than they were during the Cuban Missile Crisis, warns Nikita Khrushchev’s daughter – 60 years after her father backed down from Armageddon
- Nina Khrushcheva’s great-grandfather was leader of the Soviet Union in 1962
- She said Kennedy and Khrushchev de-escalated when there was a real threat
- Ms Khrushcheva added that it was ‘clear’ the current conflict was a proxy war
Daily Mail By JONATHAN ROSE FOR MAILONLINE, 30 April 2022 Russia and the West are closer to nuclear war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev has said.
Nina Khrushcheva, an academic whose great-grandfather was leader of the Soviet Union during the 1962 standoff, warned the conflict in Ukraine is more dangerous because neither side appears prepared to ‘back off’.
Ms Khrushcheva said despite a ‘war of words’ during the period of Cold War brinkmanship, both President John F Kennedy and Khrushchev agreed to de-escalate as soon as there was a real threat of nuclear action.
Speaking on the Today programme, she said it was ‘clear’ the current conflict was a proxy war between the West and Russia in which Ukraine is ‘to some degree a pawn’.
Ms Khrushcheva, a professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, said of the 1962 crisis: ‘What really saved the world at the time was that both Khrushchev and Kennedy, whatever they thought of each other’s ideology and disagreed with it, and didn’t want to give in and blink first, yet when the threat appeared of a potential conflict of any kind they immediately backed off.
‘We are closer to more issues, nuclear, than any other way, because I don’t see today any side, particularly the Russian side, backing off, and that’s what really scares me the most.’
She added: ‘It was clear on February 24 it was a proxy war because it was the negotiations of Ukraine with the United States first of all and then Nato, so that was already a proxy conversation and Ukraine was to some degree a pawn in this relationship.’
Her concerns about escalation were echoed by former MI6 chief Sir Alex Younger, who said the ‘discipline of deterrence’ that helped both sides back down in 1962 appears to have been lost…………… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10770315/Russia-West-closer-nuclear-war-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.html
Germany backs a plan to put sanctions on the supply from Russia, of uranium, the fuel for Europe’s so called ”independent self-sufficient, sovereign” nuclear energy.
Russia faces threat of sanctions on nuclear power industry as Germany backs uranium ban https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-nuclear-power-uranium-plants-europe-imports-germany-sanctions-ukraine-war/
Move would hit the supply of uranium to the EU’s Russian-built reactors, as well as new nuclear projects., BY BARBARA MOENS, ZIA WEISE, AMERICA HERNANDEZ AND LEONIE KIJEWSKI. April 29, 2022 Germany has thrown its weight behind demands to sanction uranium imports from Russia and other parts of Vladimir Putin’s civil nuclear industry in retaliation for his invasion of Ukraine, five EU diplomats told POLITICO.
Such a move could hit the supply of uranium that fuels the bloc’s Russian-built power reactors, as well as new nuclear projects managed by Russia’s Rosatom Western Europe subsidiary, based in Paris.
Four of the diplomats said sanctioning Russia’s nuclear industry was discussed in a meeting with EU ambassadors and the Commission earlier this week, with Poland and the Baltic countries leading the calls to act.
“Germany’s ambassador on Wednesday announced Berlin’s new position, saying they are not only OK with oil sanctions, but they actively support an oil phaseout, rather than just a price cap, and a ban on Russian uranium,” one EU diplomat said.
The fact that Germany, the EU’s economic powerhouse, is now on board makes the move significantly more likely. A wide range of MEPs have also asked for nuclear to be included in EU sanctions.
“It is important for the Germans, Austrians and others that the EU reduces its energy dependency on Russia across the board. This includes banning imports of Russian nuclear fuels as well. For them it is a bit of a no-brainer,” an EU diplomat said.
The European Commission is working on proposals for a sixth package of sanctions against Russia, including potentially measures targeting oil. Details are expected to be discussed with EU countries in the coming days as European governments seek to intensify pressure on Putin by cutting off the revenues from energy exports that finance his invasion of Ukraine.
It is not yet clear how soon sanctions on nuclear imports to the EU could be imposed.
But any move against Russia’s nuclear industry would not be pain free for Europeans. The EU imports almost all of its uranium from outside the bloc. About 20 percent comes from Russia, making it the second-biggest supplier to the EU after Niger.
Antinuclear 