Claims Over Broken Promises About NATO Simmer at the Heart of the Ukraine Crisis
Francis A Boyle 7 Feb 22, Under basic principles of international law, high level government officials acting within the scope of their official authority can bind a State under international law. It does not have to be in writing. Over the years I have dealt with some of the top Soviet/Russian International Lawyers. They know these Rules as well as I do.
Clearly, these commitments would preclude the concerned NATO States from admitting Ukraine as a NATO Member. It is time for them to put this binding commitment into writing as Russia has demanded in order to solve this matter.
US created Ukraine mess, now it must repair Russia relationship
But the US and NATO’s interest in Ukraine is not really about resolving its regional differences, but about something else altogether. The US coup was calculated to put Russia in an impossible position. If Russia did nothing, post-coup Ukraine would sooner or later join NATO, as NATO members already agreed to in principle in 2008. NATO forces would advance right up to Russia’s border and Russia’s important naval base at Sevastopol in the Crimea would fall under NATO control.
Underlying all these tensions is NATO’s expansion through Eastern Europe to the borders of Russia, in violation of commitments Western officials made at the end of the Cold War. The US and NATO’s refusal to acknowledge that they have violated those commitments or to negotiate a diplomatic resolution with the Russians is a central factor in the breakdown of US-Russian relations.
US created Ukraine mess, now it must repair Russia relationship https://johnmenadue.com/us-created-ukraine-mess-now-it-must-repair-russia-relationship/ By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. DaviesFeb 5, 2022 Western media accounts of the current Ukraine crisis are forgetting the US’s role in the 2014 coup, which forced the then-president to flee.
By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. DaviesFeb 5, 2022 Western media accounts of the current Ukraine crisis are forgetting the US’s role in the 2014 coup, which forced the then-president to flee.
Feb 5, 2022 Western media accounts of the current Ukraine crisis are forgetting the US’s role in the 2014 coup, which forced the then-president to flee. So what are Americans to believe about the rising tensions over Ukraine? The United States and Russia both claim their escalations are defensive, responding to threats and escalations by the other side, but the resulting spiral of escalation can only make war more likely. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is warning that “panic” by US and Western leaders is already causing economic destabilisation in Ukraine.
By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. DaviesFeb 5, 2022 Western media accounts of the current Ukraine crisis are forgetting the US’s role in the 2014 coup, which forced the then-president to flee.
US allies do not all support the current US policy. Germany is wisely refusing to funnel more weapons into Ukraine, in keeping with its long-standing policy of not sending weapons into conflict zones. Ralf Stegner, a senior Member of Parliament for Germany’s ruling Social Democrats, told the BBC on January 25 that the Minsk-Normandy process agreed to by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine in 2015 is still the right framework for ending the civil war.
“The Minsk Agreement hasn’t been applied by both sides,” Stegner explained, “and it just doesn’t make any sense to think that forcing up the military possibilities would make it better. Rather, I think it’s the hour of diplomacy.”
By contrast, most American politicians and corporate media have fallen in line with a one-sided narrative that paints Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine, and they support sending more and more weapons to Ukrainian government forces. After decades of US military disasters based on such one-sided narratives, Americans should know better by now. But what is it that our leaders and the corporate media are not telling us this time?
The most critical events that have been airbrushed out of the West’s political narrative are the violation of agreements Western leaders made at the end of the Cold War not to expand NATO into Eastern Europe, and the US-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014.
Continue readingTHE ILLEGALITY OF NATO
THE ILLEGALITY OF NATO, By John Scales Avery, Popular Resistance.6 Feb 22, Recent threats of war over Ukraine.
Russia understandably fears the eastward expansion of NATO. Recently NATO countries, led by the United States, have supplied arms to Ukraine. There is a threat that the tensions building up in the region will lead to war. Such a development would be catastrophic for the entire world. Against this backdrop, let us examine the question of NATO’s illegality.
Violation of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles
In recent years, participation in NATO has made European countries accomplices in US efforts to achieve global hegemony by means of military force, in violation of international law, and especially in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles.
Former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Christof von Sponeck used the following words to express his opinion that NATO now violates the UN Charter and international law: “In the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the Charter of the United Nations was declared to be NATO’s legally binding framework. However, the United-Nations monopoly of the use of force, especially as specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted according to the 1999 NATO doctrine. NATO’s territorial scope, until then limited to the Euro-Atlantic region, was expanded by its members to include the whole world”
Article 2 of the UN Charter requires that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” This requirement is somewhat qualified by Article 51, which says that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Thus, in general, war is illegal under the UN Charter. Self-defense against an armed attack is permitted, but only for a limited time, until the Security Council has had time to act. The United Nations Charter does not permit the threat or use of force in preemptive wars, or to produce regime changes, or for so-called “democratization”, or for the domination of regions that are rich in oil. NATO must not be a party to the threat or use of force for such illegal purposes.
In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed “the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal”. The General Assembly also established an International Law Commission to formalize the Nuremberg Principles. The result was a list that included Principles VI and VII, which are particularly important in the context of the illegality of NATO:
Principle VI: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
a) Crimes against peace: (I) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (I).
b) War crimes:……………….
Violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
At present, NATO’s nuclear weapons policies violate both the spirit and the text of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in several respects:………………………………….. https://popularresistance.org/the-illegality-of-nato/
France is exploring new ways to dispose of radioactive materials but public opposition is as fierce as ever
“There may be a price [communities] are willing to accept in order to stomach the waste and its risks, but we don’t know what that price is yet,” … “If it’s high enough, it will ultimately add to the cost of disposal.” Local authorities have poured millions of euros of subsidies and compensation into the area to support the project
The nuclear power dilemma: where to put the lethal waste
France is exploring new ways to dispose of radioactive materials but public opposition is as fierce as ever, Ft.com Anna Gross in Chooz and Sarah White in Bure 6 FEB 22,
”………………….Resistance is fissile Cigeo has attracted the same kind of vocal opposition found at other potential burial sites. And, as a result Bure, a village of fewer than 100 inhabitants, has become a battleground where protesters have regularly clashed with police over the future of the site. Demonstrators have set up a “house of resistance” in Bure that has become a magnet for anti-nuclear protesters around the country. The former barn is equipped with a projection room, mattresses to welcome guests and a cosy communal kitchen.
Campaigners say the Bure site has become representative of a broader cause. “Beyond the waste, it’s nuclear production above all else that worries us,” says a 29-year-old jurist who gave his name as Antoine, one of a handful of campaigners manning the fort on a snowy February morning. “It’s a supposedly low carbon source of energy, but you’ve got to build the reactors . . . it is such a dangerous and destructive solution.” Yet the state holds that the undeniable risks of nuclear energy are outweighed by its potential benefits as a cost-effective way of cutting CO2 emissions. According to a report last year from French grid operator RTE, France’s cheapest way to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 would involve building 14 new reactors. Under the scenarios RTE presented, if France built no new nuclear reactors and relied exclusively on expanding renewables and extending the lifespan of existing nuclear, this would cost €10bn more per year than other options including new reactors, with the cost of decommissioning factored into the final bill.
But that may not factor in the costs of convincing French citizens to host such facilities in their backyards. Bure resident Anne-Marie Henn, a retiree, says the project has forced her and her artist husband Jacques to give up on their dream of creating a painting atelier in an annex to their home. “We’d like to leave, but our house isn’t worth anything any more,” she says. Ed Lyman, senior global security scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, who has spent decades researching nuclear power safety, says the science behind burying waste is robust, and the dangers of corrosion or leakage minimal. But there remain real risks for the public, he says, such as accidents happening when materials are transported to the site.
“There may be a price [communities] are willing to accept in order to stomach the waste and its risks, but we don’t know what that price is yet,” he adds. “If it’s high enough, it will ultimately add to the cost of disposal.” Local authorities have poured millions of euros of subsidies and compensation into the area to support the project and residents. In Bure, that has translated into snazzy lampposts lining every street alongside the barns and stone houses; households have also got fibre optic internet connections and sanitation networks have been improved. “We’ve got to deal with this crap,” Henn says. “At the very least we can benefit a bit from [subsidies].”
But the concerns of many communities go way beyond immediate dangers to more existential questions: how can we ensure that not just our children and grandchildren, but people living thousands of years in the future have the knowledge and understanding to handle it responsibly? And how can we be sure that the storage containers we have developed now will stand the test of time? “What we’ll be getting here is the really dangerous core of the waste,” Henn says, adding that it was “the generations to come” that worried her.
Andra, the French state agency responsible for nuclear waste management, is considering ways to warn future generations of what lies below Bure — perhaps by inscribing microscopic information on a hard disk of sapphire, designed to withstand erosion, should the site be forgotten. “Even if we lose our collective memory, the storage site will be safe,” says spokesperson Audrey Guillemenet. If these kinds of innovations fail to impress French lawmakers and the site does not win approval, that leaves the government with a problem that goes far beyond the billions spent on construction. “Some 50 per cent of the [nuclear] waste destined to come here eventually already exists,” says Guillemenet. Forget the next generation of power plants; the decades-old materials Gannaz and his predecessors have removed from Chooz A are a problem that needs a solution. If it is not Bure, then what is it? https://www.ft.com/content/246dad82-c107-4886-9be2-e3b3c4c4f315?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6
Nuclear baloney
Majority support for nuclear energy — which does not appear to be the case publicly, even if it is so politically — is a clear testament to the power of well-funded propaganda campaigns and the deep pockets of lobbyists. None of us engaged on this subject have missed the saturation media campaign, on-going now for months if not years, that sows the erroneous notion in the heads of politicians that nuclear power is an answer — even the answer — to climate change.
Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. Today’s media has become especially guilty of this. I recently had to correct a Financial Times reporter who, in an otherwise perfectly good article, described nuclear power as having “no carbon footprint.” There is no stop-and-think going on here. After all, even renewable energy does not have “no” carbon footprint.
Nuclear waste risks can be “minimized” and other myths
Nuclear baloney — Beyond Nuclear International AP story on states’ nuclear choice fails to point out key realities
By Linda Pentz Gunter, 6 Feb 2,
There are geniuses amongst us. We just didn’t know it. They are the supporters of nuclear power, who, according to the Associated Press, “say the risks can be minimized” when it comes to the perpetual and unsolved problem of long-lived, high-level radioactive waste — the main by-product of generating electricity using nuclear power.
This observation comes within an AP story headlined: “Majority of US states pursue nuclear power for emission cuts”, and which has garnered significant pickup in numerous media outlets. (However, we never do learn the secret to precisely how nuclear waste risks can be “minimized”.)
The agency surveyed “the energy policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia,” finding that “about two-thirds” plan to use nuclear power to replace fossil fuels.
The mantra about solving the nuclear waste problem has been repeated since the dawn of the Nuclear Age, coming up on 80 years this December. That was when, on December 2, 1942, the first cupful of radioactive waste was generated, a result of the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction achieved at the Chicago Pile-1 by Enrico Fermi and his team.
At that time, scientists knew that radioactive waste was a problem, but assumed it would be solved later. Well, here we are at “later” and it’s still unsolved. Now, “minimizing” rather than solving the problem is apparently justification enough to keep using this dangerous technology.
Continue readingFebruary 6 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Winter Olympics: Will The Beijing Games Be ‘Green And Clean’?” • China has promised to deliver a “green and clean” Winter Olympics. Organisers say they prioritized protecting native species, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and cutting down on resources used. Extraordinary as efforts have been, there have been criticisms. [BBC] Two-man bobsled (Rowan Simpson, […]
February 6 Energy News — geoharvey
New ‘cool’ pro nuclear propaganda ignores plutonium danger – theme for February 22
The new pro nuclear shills are young, feminine, cool, and disastrously ignorant about radioactivity and nuclear wastes.
Why do we let them keep on making this toxic radioactive trash?
.
ARPANSA cannot with a straight face, approve flood-prone Napandee farm as a safe location for a nuclear waste dump.
Kimba flooding https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=21824, By Peter Remta – 3 February 2022 The years of touting by the federal government and the responsible ministers of Kimba in South Australia as the perfect and inarguably superior location for the proposed national radioactive waste management facility have dramatically and quite suddenly disappeared. There is no doubt that the severe flooding caused by the recent heavy rains in South Australia which included the Kimba district is a serious and essential reason for immediately aborting the proposed management facility at Napandee farm near Kimba as the selected facility location |
From expert advice it is quite clear that Kimba as a whole – and not just Napandee – is far too dangerous to become the location for the holding of nuclear waste particularly as the results of the present flooding may take up to ten years to overcome without any further flooding
This is especially the case as nuclear isotopes are dispersed and travel freely in water which can affect and contaminate all the surrounding land for many centuries making it completely unusable
There cannot be any excuse by claiming that this flooding may be a once in a lifetime unexpected event as there had been extensive previous floods in the Eyre Peninsula over sixty years ago
More importantly the nature of the proposed facility is that it must be a completely safe and competent environment to hold nuclear waste for several centuries which the federal government claims to be the case as part of its planning
The government as the proponent of the Kimba nuclear waste facility cannot deny knowledge of floods – and also fires – as risks for the purposes of the safety requirements for management of nuclear waste in Australia
The advice by overseas experts is that these two major risks are far more pertinent to Australia than other countries with nuclear waste and consequently the regulatory bodies should or must include these risks within the Australian waste management framework and other applicable prescriptions and standards for the long-term management of Australia’s radioactive waste.
This must obviously include the storage or disposal of nuclear waste at suitably located and established facilities
l informed ARPANSA some eighteen months ago about the formal inclusion of these risks in its safety codes and the requirement for the long overdue start of the safety case for Kimba but the response was that it was not necessary at that stage
The prescriptive requirement is for a safety case for any nuclear installation be started at the very beginning as to why a specific site is considered worthy of investigation
The safety case is then updated as the site characterisation proceeds and if the site fails to live up to initial expectations then it should be abandoned.
This process is an important part of public engagement and if one waits until the end of the process then the argument for safety is less credible and the chance to generate public support has been lost (1)
It seems to be a case of falling asleep at the wheel as mentioned previously by the Hon. George Gear with regard to the regulatory role of ARPANSA (2)
Irrespective of the colourful presentations and nicely sounding spin by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and even to some extent by ARPANSA there is no doubt that this is a serious breach of the safety requirements that should have been applied to Kimba at the outset
I think that ARPANSA will shortly hear from the UN Special Rapporteurs involved with this situation so that they can properly protect the human rights of the Kimba community.
It will be interesting to see how specifically ARPANSA and ANSTO will deal with the lack of a safety case from the beginning of the government’s proposals as this seems a major failing in proper and necessary safety regulation
As also previously pointed out the federal government should have given the Kimba community the opportunity and with the necessary funding for getting an independent assessment and review of the government’s proposals particularly as there had been so much vehement opposition to the proposed facility
I am not in any way suggesting that this would have stopped the flooding but there should have been proper and early regulation and oversight of the risks of floods and other calamities whether natural or man-made in a much stronger manner
It is now quite obvious that the Kimba region is completely unsuitable and inappropriate for the establishment of the national waste facility and ARPANSA as the regulator should immediately stop anything further being by or on behalf of the government to pursue the establishment of the facility
This should include the withdrawal and cancellation of ministerial declaration to select Napandee as the site for the proposed facility even if the necessary legislative changes may need to await the next parliament
At least this may give the community of Kimba and in fact the whole Eyre Peninsula some comfort and respite from their long-standing concerns.
Nuclear submarine plan does not mean more jobs for Australians. In fact it’s already caused 1,100 job losses
Now, we find out that the new $100 billion AUKUS subs deal is unlikely to have any local content mandate and may deliver absolutely nothing to the South Australian economy and workers.
more than 1,100 South Australian workers had lost their jobs because of the government’s decision to scrap the French agreement.
Doubts over local industry involvement in nuclear subs program, Joseph Brookes, Innovation Aus, Senior Reporter, 4 February 2022 Unions have called on the Prime Minister to commit to a minimum level of local industry involvement in the upcoming nuclear submarine program after a senior Defence official reportedly said there would be no mandated minimum level.
A high-ranking Defence official this week told an industry conference the department is “maturing beyond ascribing a percentage” of local industry involvement and was unlikely to set a minimum like previous major ship builds, according to The Australian.
In response to subsequent concerns from local industry, Defence minister Peter Dutton said Australia would “get the balance right” between supporting local industry and securing capabilities in response to rising foreign conflicts involving China………
The minister did not commit to a minimum level of local industry participation in submarine contracts.
In response to the earlier report that Defence’s Capability and Sustainment Group chief counsel Fran Rush had said the government was more focused more on securing capability than building local industry, unions called for Prime Minister Scott Morrison to fulfil a commitment to build at least eight nuclear powered submarines in Adelaide.
“Scott Morrison promised South Australia that it would receive billions in investment and thousands of jobs from the AUKUS submarine contract, making up for the significant losses caused by his tearing up of the French Naval Group contract, under which many South Australians were already employed,” SA Unions Secretary Dale Beasley said.
Now, we find out that the new $100 billion AUKUS subs deal is unlikely to have any local content mandate and may deliver absolutely nothing to the South Australian economy and workers.
“First Scott Morrison betrayed the French, now he’s betraying South Australians, by ripping away promised jobs and investment.”
The union said more than 1,100 South Australian workers had lost their jobs because of the government’s decision to scrap the French agreement.
Nearly 150 officials, including private contractors, are part of a government-led taskforce currently exploring options for acquiring submarines.
Do you know more? Contact James Riley via Email. https://www.innovationaus.com/doubts-over-local-industry-involvement-in-nuclear-subs-program/
The ABC is under the biggest attack in its history
The ABC is under the biggest attack in its history https://www.sarahhansonyoung.com/save_our_abc_petition?recruiter_id=759870
Our ABC is facing death by a thousand cuts – totalling over half a BILLION dollars – from the Liberals who can’t handle the public broadcaster doing its job and holding those in power to account. Sadly, our democracy is going to be far worse off for it.
Not only has the Morrison Government failed to restore the millions of dollars of funding they have cut from the ABC year after year, there is now no future funding for the Enhanced News Gathering program.
Our ABC is facing death by a thousand cuts – totalling over half a BILLION dollars – from the Liberals who can’t handle the public broadcaster doing its job and holding those in power to account. Sadly, our democracy is going to be far worse off for it.
Not only has the Morrison Government failed to restore the millions of dollars of funding they have cut from the ABC year after year, there is now no future funding for the Enhanced News Gathering program.
The ABC has been a vital source of information during the pandemic and helped save lives during the catastrophic summer bushfires immediately before that.
To do its job as the public expects, to continue producing the new Australians trust and the stories we love, the ABC must be well-funded.
The ABC needs allies, now more than ever.
Bill To Ban Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage In New Mexico Passes House Committee
“It’s inconceivable why New Mexico has to be the dumping ground for the nation’s ill-advised investment in nuclear energy and nuclear weapons,” said Paul Gibson, co-founder of Retake Our Democracy. “The risk to our community is far greater than the benefit.”
Although the site is termed temporary, Holtec is seeking a 40-year license to operate there, which opponents say would make it permanent.
By SCOTT WYLAND, The Santa Fe New Mexican, 4 Feb 22, A bill clearly aimed at blocking Holtec International from building an underground storage site for spent nuclear fuel in southeastern New Mexico is moving forward.
The House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee voted 5-4 to advance a bill that would ban the storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel in the state — and would essentially kill Holtec’s plans to build a repository for this high-level radioactive waste in the Carlsbad area.
It now will go to the House Judiciary Committee.
A key point in the debate was whether the state has the authority to stop the federal government from approving what’s described as an interim storage site to keep the material until a permanent place is created.
Some lawmakers and regulators who back House Bill 127 say although the state can’t interfere with how the commission regulates the waste, it can block storage sites that could cause adverse environmental impacts.
The bill’s opponents argue the state still would be preempting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s authority in managing commercial nuclear waste. That simply is not allowed, no matter what criteria the state uses, they said.
But Sen. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, who strongly supports the bill, said the state is well within its rights to say no to nuclear disposal sites that could contaminate vital resources, such as groundwater, and pose risks to communities when the waste is transported by rail across the country.
“Does New Mexico have the authority to do this? Yes, we do,” Steinborn said. “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission absolutely has primacy over regulating spent fuel. But what we’re talking here is the siting of this material, and our concerns on multiple grounds.”
Still, Rep. Larry Scott, R-Hobbs, contends the federal government’s power to regulate radioactive material overrides any state authority, including on environmental matters.
“I’m looking at your legislation, which seems to completely contradict that,” Scott said.
Last year, the state sued the federal government, contending the commission hadn’t done enough to ensure Holtec’s proposed site wouldn’t harm the environment, communities or the oil and gas industry in one of the nation’s richest fossil fuel regions.
Although the site is termed temporary, Holtec is seeking a 40-year license to operate there, which opponents say would make it permanent.
State Deputy Environment Secretary Rebecca Roose said no permanent disposal site has been established, so the waste has nowhere else to go.
“It’s more likely to stay there — the inertia will be to keep it there as opposed to move it someplace else permanent,” Roose said, “if and when a permanent facility is identified.”…………………
The bill’s proponents say it’s necessary to prevent a massive amount of high-level radioactive waste from coming to New Mexico and disproportionately affecting poor and minority communities.
“It’s inconceivable why New Mexico has to be the dumping ground for the nation’s ill-advised investment in nuclear energy and nuclear weapons,” said Paul Gibson, co-founder of Retake Our Democracy. “The risk to our community is far greater than the benefit.” https://ladailypost.com/bill-to-ban-spent-nuclear-fuel-storage-in-new-mexico-passes-house-committee/
Decommissioning is just the beginning of the huge nuclear legacy problem
Nuclear power concerns outlast decommissioning, Great Lakes Echo, By Cameryn Cass 4 Feb 22,
Editor’s note: This is part of a package of two articles and a podcast about nuclear power in Michigan.
As Michigan and other states gradually move away from coal and other brown energy sources, there’s growing interest in carbon-free alternatives, including nuclear energy,
As Michigan and other states gradually move away from coal and other brown energy sources, there’s growing interest in carbon-free alternatives, including nuclear energy, which some advocates call a “clean alternative” that now fuels 30% of Michigan’s total electricity.
One nuclear plant in the state, Big Rock Point in Charlevoix closed in 1997 and has been fully decommissioned. In the spring of 2022, the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Southwest Michigan’s Van Buren County will close because of a “business decision.”
Michigan also has the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant in Newport, near Monroe, and the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant in Berrien County’s Bridgman, according to the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy.
With Palisades and other plants in the Great Lakes region scheduled to shut down in the coming decades, more people are considering the long-term impacts of this energy source.
After decommissioning, radioactive waste remains on-site, said Susan Chiblow, an Indigenous environmental scholar in Ontario.
The waste stays in the environment for trillions of years, so calling nuclear power clean is propaganda, she said.
In short, risks don’t disappear when a plant is decommissioned, a process that can take up to 60 years, said Edwin Lyman, the nuclear safety project director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization based in Massachusetts.
Although closed plants no longer have to worry about accidents post shut-down, their operators remain responsible for managing the radiated materials and spent nuclear waste, Lyman said.
He said waste now stored on-site is vulnerable to security threats and climate disasters.
For five years, the waste is kept in large swimming pool-like structures where it’s mixed with water to keep it cool. Then, it’s transferred to dry casks, he said.
The U.S. Department of Energy is technically responsible for removing the waste, but it has nowhere to bring it, Lyman said.
“It’s going to be a long-term storage problem for any nuclear plant that’s shut down,” Lyman said……………………………
Thirteen states have banned construction of new nuclear plants.
In the Great Lakes region, Minnesota adopted its ban in 1994. ……
Because the Great Lakes account for one-fifth of the world’s freshwater, Chiblow and other environmentalists are especially interested in protecting it……….http://greatlakesecho.org/2022/02/04/nuclear-power-concerns-outlast-decommissioning/
Even the right-wing Cato Institute wants USA to deal with Ukraine crisis by diplomacy, not weaponry
Washington has also mentioned steps to “enhance deterrence” on the continent, which could entail the forward deployment of additional U.S. nuclear weapons.
As Clouds Gather in Eastern Europe, Nuclear Diplomacy is More Important Than Ever
More must be done to keep tensions over Ukraine from deepening nuclear instability. Defense One BY ERIC GOMEZ, 4 Feb 22, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE POLICY STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE
The risk that a Russian invasion of Ukraine by conventional forces could lead to the use of nuclear weapons appears relatively low, but their shadow is never completely absent from a crisis involving nuclear-armed states. Moreover, this crisis—no matter how it ends—seems likely to lead toward more strategic instability, not less. As preoccupied as U.S. diplomats must be with the threat of imminent conventional invasion, they must also work urgently to launch confidence-building measures that might prevent a nuclear war
The recent back-and-forth between Washington and Moscow has been free of explicit nuclear threats, but there has been some nuclear signaling. As Russia massed forces near Ukraine in December, its foreign ministry released two proposed treaties, one for NATO and one for the United States. The draft of the NATO treaty included an article prohibiting the deployment of missiles previously outlawed by the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The draft of the U.S. treaty had more explicit references to nuclear weapons, including pledges to not deploy them outside national territory and to not train personnel from non-nuclear countries in their use—a reference to NATO nuclear-sharing arrangements
Washington’s response to the buildup has centered on sanctions and deploying conventional military forces to NATO allies in eastern Europe. But it has also mentioned steps to “enhance deterrence” on the continent, which could entail the forward deployment of additional U.S. nuclear weapons. And while the Biden administration has said that it will not send U.S. troops to defend Ukraine, which helps reduce the likelihood of a NATO-Russia conflict, it has also signaled that it will send more forces to eastern Europe if Russia attacks Ukraine.
For its part, Moscow has warned that it will respond if NATO expands its troop presence in eastern Europe. Among its options are moving nuclear weapons closer to western Europe. Such moves could lead NATO to add even more forces to deter an attack on member countries, thus setting off a spiral of actions and counter-actions with no clear way to break the cycle.
Ultimately, this spiral is likely to put more nuclear forces in closer proximity, inherently decreasing stability and increasing the risk of accidental war. It may also prompt more calls to expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which in turn could make it harder for Washington and Moscow to reach new agreements on nuclear arms control…………………Another potential reassurance measure would be negotiating mutual limitations on the deployment of missiles previously outlawed by the INF Treaty. Russia has already signaled such limitations in its December demands, and the United States reportedly responded positively to the idea of mutual limitations
he faint but darkening nuclear shadow over the Ukraine crisis means that these kinds of ideas and discussions are no diplomatic side show. They are crucial to warding off instability of an even more potentially devastating type.
”Nuclear is neither green nor sustainable” – Austria to sue European Commission if it approves nuclear power for financial incentives
Austria’s chancellor responded to the news by saying “nuclear power is neither green nor sustainable”. “I cannot understand the decision of the EU,” Karl Nehammer said. He said he would back his environment minister, Leonore Gewessler, in pursuing legal action at the European Court of Justice if the plans go ahead.
“This decision is wrong,” Ms Gewessler said. “The EU Commission today agreed its greenwashing programme for nuclear energy and [the fossil fuel] natural gas.” Luxembourg has also said it will
join in legal action. The EU has set itself a goal of becoming climate neutral by 2050 and the Commission argues that to get there, a great deal of private investment is needed. Its proposals are meant to guide
investors.
BBC 3rd Feb 2022
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60229199
Nuclear power: CO2 fix or cost disaster?
Nuclear power: CO2 fix or cost disaster? E and E News | 02/04/2022 President Biden’s plan to decarbonize the U.S. electricity sector by 2035 could give a boost to nuclear power, but that may hinge on two key questions: Can carbon targets really incentivize the technology, and can it compete cost wise with natural gas?
It’s a debate that is resurfacing, considering recent surging prices of natural gas.
Yet industry hasn’t answeredwhether nuclear will be more economic for producing power, especially after costs for two new reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia skyrocketed. The actual costs of 75 of the more than 90 existing nuclear power reactorsin the U.S. exceeded the initially estimated costs of the units by over 200 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
There are many facets of the cost question — existing nuclear plants in competitive markets face economic challenges that could force them to close early, saddling operators with stranded costs and removing emissions-free electrons [not really emissions-free] from the grid. Meanwhile, no large, baseload reactors are on the table. The industry is working to develop smaller, next-generation reactors by the next decade, but the fate and final costs of projects are uncertain.
“There doesn’t seem to be, in the near term, a big thing that’s going to be pushing” nuclear, said Paul Patterson, a utility analyst with Glenrock Associates LLC. Whether the nuclear industry builds new reactors could help shape the electricity mix for decades. Falling renewable energy costs and higher gas prices may also influence investment decisions for nuclear in unexpected ways.
………… Southern Co.’s Vogtle expansion project hasn’t helped the case for baseload nuclear. The project, which was supposed to lead a resurgence of larger reactors in the 2000s, remains theonly major nuclear power construction project in the United States. Vogtle’sprice tag is twice an earlier $14 billion budget, andthe project is more than seven years behind schedule.
……more than one big electric company has shelved its plans to build large reactors using similar technology because of the litany of troubles at Vogtle…………………….
it’s unclear whether SMRs will face some of the same cost challenges as traditional reactors.
In the past, the higher price tag for nuclearin comparison to expectations was tied to safety regulations, which are the most stringent of all power plants. What’s more, if any work needs to be redone to meet strict codes, that pushes out the deadline to finish the plant.
The longer it takes to get it right, the more expensive the reactors become.
“There are so many concerns about radioactive material, etc., so that’s what drives much of the cost,” Glenrock’s Patterson said. “You don’t have the same issues associated with regulations for other power plants, understandably so.”
………… A group of former nuclear regulators in the United States, Germany and France argued last month that nuclear isn’t safe, clean or smart.
It’smore expensive than renewables in terms of producing energy and mitigating carbon dioxide, even accounting for costs such as pairing renewable energy with storage, according to the group, which alsoincludes a former secretary to a United Kingdom radiation protection committee.
The former regulators said nuclear is unlikely “to make a relevant contribution to necessary climate change mitigation” that’s needed by the 2030s………………………………..
Gas and renewables
Ultimately, the trajectory of nuclear will directly affect how wind, solar, batteries and fossil fuels are used in the coming decades.
Coyle pointed out that while the cost of Vogtle has doubled during the seven-year delay, the price of renewables, including storage, has dropped. Going forward, she argues that Georgia Power should compare the cost of planned generation with not only combined-cycle natural gas but also with renewable options such as utility-scale solar and long-term agreements to buy wind power.
“This argument that, ‘Well, it’s reliable, it’s low-cost, it’s carbon-free,’ then why are we still comparing it to combined-cycle natural gas?” Coyle said.
“There are now significantly more cost-effective renewable energy options than any of us anticipated back in the day when Vogtle 3 and 4 were certified.”……………
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 