Fusion reactors could create ingredients for a nuclear weapon in weeks
Concern over the risks of enabling nuclear weapons development is usually focused on nuclear fission reactors, but the potential harm from more advanced fusion reactors has been underappreciated
By Alex Wilkins, 8 May 2024
Fusion reactors could allow a country to accelerate its development of nuclear weapons, producing the necessary radioactive ingredients in as little as a few weeks.
Nuclear weapons need specific radioactive isotopes, normally uranium-235 or plutonium-239, that can be easily split and start a chain reaction. This so-called fissile material is rare in nature, but can be produced artificially by a source that produces a lot of neutrons, such as a nuclear fission reactor of the kind in use today.… (Subscribers only) more https://www.newscientist.com/article/2430012-fusion-reactors-could-create-ingredients-for-a-nuclear-weapon-in-weeks/
Students Demanding Divestment: You’re on the Right Side of History
SCHEERPOST, By Marjorie Cohn, May 7, 2024
Note: The following are remarks I delivered on Saturday, May 4, 2024 at the 55-year reunion of the Stanford University antiwar movement, in which I participated. On April 3, 1969, an estimated 700 Stanford students voted to occupy the Applied Electronics Laboratory (AEL), where classified research on electronic warfare was being conducted at Stanford. That spawned the April Third Movement (A3M), which holds reunions every five to 10 years. The sit-in at AEL, supported by a majority of Stanford students, lasted nine days. Stanford moved the objectionable research off campus, but the A3M continued with sit-ins, teach-ins and confrontations with police in the Stanford Industrial Park.
his reunion comes at an auspicious time, with college campuses erupting all over the country in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Once again, 55 years later, Stanford students are rising up for peace and justice. They have established a “People’s University” encampment and they are demanding that Stanford: (1) explicitly condemn Israel’s genocide and apartheid; (2) call for an immediate ceasefire, and for Israel and Egypt to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza; (3) immediately divest from the consumer brands identified by the Palestinian BDS National Committee and all firms in Stanford’s investment portfolio that are complicit in Israeli war crimes, apartheid and genocide.
At this moment in history, there are two related military occupations occurring simultaneously – 5,675 miles apart. One is Israel’s ongoing 57-year occupation of Palestinian territory, which is now taking the form of a full-fledged genocide that has killed more than 34,000 Palestinians. The other is at Columbia University, where the administration has asked the New York Police Department to occupy the school until May 17. Both occupations are fueled by the Zionist power structure. Both have weaponized antisemitism to rationalize their brutality.
The students at Columbia are demanding that the university end its investments in companies and funds that are profiting from Israel’s war against the Palestinians. They want financial transparency and amnesty for students and faculty involved in the demonstration. Most protesters throughout the country are demanding an immediate ceasefire and divestment from companies with interests in Israel. More than 2,300 people have been arrested or detained on U.S. college campuses.
Israel has damaged or destroyed every university in Gaza. But no university president has denounced Israel’s genocide or supported the call for divestment.
The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement was launched in 2005 by 170 Palestinian civil society organizations who described BDS as “non-violent punitive measures” to last until Israel fully complies with international law………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
On April 3, 1969, 700 Stanford students voted to occupy the Applied Electronics Laboratory (AEL), where classified research on electronic warfare was being conducted at Stanford. That spawned the April Third Movement (A3M), which holds reunions every five to 10 years. The sit-in at AEL, supported by a majority of Stanford students, lasted nine days. Stanford moved the objectionable research off campus, but the A3M continued with sit-ins, teach-ins and confrontations with police in the Stanford Industrial Park. https://scheerpost.com/2024/05/07/students-demanding-divestment-youre-on-the-right-side-of-history/
TODAY. Time to rise above the tit-for-tat mentality – “Turning Point: the Bomb and the Cold War” (and this is not an ad)
This is a Netflix series. And I’m sorry to be looking as if I am advertising. But the thing is – life is too serious, too important – to worry about this.
To me, the important thing about this series is that it rises above political and national loyalties. Produced by Luminant Media and director Brian Knappenberger, this really is the definitive documentary on the Cold War and the Atomic Bomb.
I didn’t know that Americans were capable of creating an unbiased factual history of nuclear weapons – that didn’t justify all American actions, and demonise all Russian’s. But this is it.
I find this lengthy detailed comprehensive study quite gripping, and also believable – authentic. I’m actually now only halfway through it, but I feel so reassured – that there exists such a visual media – that sees all sides as made up of human beings, that respects our common humanity, – while it still sets out the stupidities and atrocities done , and makes no excuses for them.
In this era of short, snappy, unreliable media of all types, there is a desperate need for longer, thoughtful, thorough, properly researched studies on our troubled world situation. We need to be getting past those lofty myths of “honour” “patriotism” “loyalty” – to try to see clearly what is actually happening now, and how we got to the crises of today.
Federal election 2025: Peter Dutton’s nuclear plans worry voters in Nationals-held seat of Gippsland.
‘A big risk’: Voters wary of nuclear replacing coal-fired power Tom McIlroy Political correspondent, AFR 7 May 24
Voters in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley have raised the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters when asked about Peter Dutton’s plan to build large-scale reactors near them, suggesting strong reservations about the energy plan.
As the Coalition finalises a policy for coal-fired power station sites to host nuclear energy – and for small modular reactor technology to be deployed in other places – focus group research in the federal electorate of Gippsland showed voters had safety concerns about living near a reactor.
Mr Dutton wants nuclear to provide baseload power to firm renewable energy and ensure Australia achieves net-zero emissions by 2050.
Communities near coal plants would be called on to host nuclear facilities, with at least six sites expected to be named before the next election.
Mr Dutton says nuclear must stack up on four key criteria: safety, waste disposal, location and cost.
But a focus group of Coalition-leaning voters questioned by polling firm Redbridge last week revealed doubts in the seat held by Nationals MP Darren Chester.
One male participant said he was opposed to nuclear replacing coal-fired power at sites like Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B and Yallourn.
“I know there’s a lot of safeguards with nuclear but it is still a very big risk if something does happen,” he said.
“It uses up a lot of resources and at the end of the day, once it has used up all its radioactiveness, we have to go bury it in the desert somewhere because we can’t do anything with it.”
A woman told the group she did not know much about the plan but had strong concerns.
“The thought of it makes me want to move. I’ve got kids. I don’t want them to be exposed to something that could affect them.”
Another woman said future generations would suffer if Australia lifted the ban on nuclear power.
“We’ve seen in the past with Chernobyl. Obviously, the situation has got better and people have learnt from things but mistakes happen and it’s a risk that you have to weigh up when considering putting something into an area with population.”
Another male participant cited the 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima power plant. He said Australia could face the risk of a similar disaster if nuclear was developed here. Another suggested that carp in local waters would “be huge” in the event of a nuclear spill………………………………………………………..
Fellow director Tony Barry said there was “intense” opposition in Gippsland.
“There is some limited opportunity for the Coalition to leverage a perception that a nuclear reactor in the region might produce local economic benefits.
“However, the problem for the Coalition is that to overcome these wide and deep concerns and to successfully leverage the perceived benefits they will need to spend millions of campaign dollars on messaging.”…………………………………… https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/a-big-risk-voters-wary-of-nuclear-replacing-coal-fired-power-20240506-p5fp9d
The End of the World as We Know It
and Democratic presidents, in particular, are often worried about appearing soft on defence—they are easily swayed by their military advisors.
Most of the US public thinks that America has renounced the optional first use of nuclear weapons. But while many presidential candidates have promised to do so, no one in office has ever made it an official policy.
Far from enhancing American national security, or the security of the world, nuclear weapons will lead us to the edge of destruction.
Lawrence M. Krauss 6 May 24, https://quillette.com/2024/05/06/the-end-of-the-world-nuclear-war-weapons-apocalypse
A review of Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen; 400 pages; New York: Dutton (March 2024)
As Chair of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists from 2008–2018, I helped unveil the Doomsday Clock every year for a decade. That meant that each year, I sat down with my colleagues for several days and seriously contemplated how close we might be to the end of civilisation. But even that sombre preparation could not prepare me for the grim realities unveiled in the recent book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, by veteran national security journalist Annie Jacobsen
Jacobsen details the events that would take place, minute by minute, in the 72 minutes from the launch of a rogue intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by North Korea to the destruction of modern civilization and the death of up to five billion people.
Jacobsen imagines the following scenario:
0 min) A lone ICBM is launched from North Korea.
(19 min) The US launches 50 ballistic missiles at targets in North Korea and instructs submarines to launch 32 additional missiles.
(21 min) Most of Southern California becomes uninhabitable due to a North Korean submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) attack on the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor.
(33 min) Washington DC, together with almost all its 6 million inhabitants, is vaporized by the impact and explosion of the North Korean ICBM.
(49 min) Fearing they are under attack from the US missiles heading toward North Korea, Russia launches 1,000 missiles at US targets. On detection of these, the US launches an ICBM and SLBM attack on 975 Russian targets.
(51 min) NATO pilots launch an aerial nuclear attack on the Russian targets.
(52 min) North Korea is effectively wiped off the map, following the impact of 32 SLBM and 50 ICBM missiles.
(57 min) All land-based US military bases are destroyed by Russian SLBMs.
(58 min) Much of Europe is destroyed by a Russian SLBM attack on NATO bases. (59 min) The US launches the remainder of its stock of SLBMs at Russia.
(72 min) 1,000 locations in the United States are hit by Soviet ICBMs. A large fraction of the US population is killed immediately and most of the rest have little or no means of survival. A similar fate befalls Russia several minutes later.
Meanwhile, 52 minutes into this apocalyptic exchange, a nuclear device explodes in space high above the US, producing an electromagnetic pulse that renders almost all communication systems in the continental US inoperative, destroying much of the country’s infrastructure and causing widespread floods and fires, thus further complicating life for the few remaining survivors.
Whether or not one finds the specific scenario Jacobsen outlines plausible, it is clear that any major nuclear confrontation would have apocalyptic consequences. As Soviet Chairman Nikita Khrushchev said shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis, in such a situation, “the survivors would envy the dead.”
Military planners have been preparing for scenarios like this since at least 1960, when the first comprehensive nuclear war planning exercise was carried out in the US.
As Jacobsen describes, in 1949, experts estimated that as few as 200 fission-type weapons of the kind that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been sufficient to essentially wipe out the Soviet Union. But despite this, both the US and the Soviets continued to amass weapons. By 1967, the US and USSR had around 30,000 nuclear and thermonuclear warheads each. While their arsenal has since been reduced, the US still has over 1,700 warheads on hair-trigger, launch-on-warning alert. Russia has only slightly fewer. Both countries have over 3,000 additional nuclear weapons stockpiled and available for use.
For the past 79 years, we have been living under the Damoclean sword of mutually assured destruction (MAD), the basis of modern nuclear deterrence. It is argued that since any act of nuclear aggression would lead to the annihilation of most of the world, no rational leader would launch a first strike. What is less frequently stressed, however, is that for this to work, deterrence must never, ever fail. Because once it does, the world as we know it will end.
The madness of having almost 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, capable of being irretrievably launched on their missions of destruction at the mere warning of an incoming nuclear attack—before a single nuclear explosion has even occurred—has not been lost on US presidential candidates from both parties. Both George W. Bush, and Barack Obama vowed to take us back from the razor’s edge while running for president, but neither made good on this promise while in the White House. I was on Obama’s science policy team during his first run for the presidency. I was gratified when he won because I thought he would fix this lunacy. I was profoundly disappointed when he didn’t.
Most of the US public thinks that America has renounced the optional first use of nuclear weapons. But while many presidential candidates have promised to do so, no one in office has ever made it an official policy.
I have often wondered why successful presidential candidates change their tune once they get into the Oval Office. I suspect that the generals who advise the President and the Secretary of Defence have lived with the idea of launch-on-warning throughout their whole careers and cannot even imagine that a US president might allow a nuclear weapon to explode on American soil without having already launched a response. Since most presidents have no experience with war game planning—and Democratic presidents, in particular, are often worried about appearing soft on defence—they are easily swayed by their military advisors.
The maddening ramping-up of nuclear arsenals is a real-world example of the well-known game theory scenario called The Prisoner’s Dilemma, in which two prisoners, who cannot communicate with either other, are motivated by mistrust to make choices that are in neither party’s best interests. Likewise, each of the superpowers assumes that its adversary will stockpile ever more nuclear weapons, so it seems logical to stockpile more themselves.
There is a simple way out of this dilemma. Unlike in the game theory example, the prisoners here can talk to each other and, through diplomacy, can jointly arrive at a win-win strategy. The problem is that there are currently almost no front-door communications between either Russia and the US or China and the US on strategic nuclear issues. The resulting perils are clear—especially at this time, with the continuing war in Ukraine, tensions between China and Taiwan, and the brewing catastrophe in the Middle East.
The American public has been misinformed about the gravity of this threat because of a false narrative regarding anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defence. Having witnessed Israel’s recent success in defending itself against conventional missiles launched from Iran, many people assume that the US has a working ABM system (a false claim first touted by George W. Bush in around 2004). We don’t—despite having spent almost 176 billion dollars trying to create such a system. As Jacobsen emphasizes in her book, we have only 44 ABM interceptors in place. Moreover, in carefully controlled tests that did not realistically reproduce the many uncertainties inherent in an actual nuclear exchange—including the possible use of decoys—the prototypes of those interceptors have failed more than 50 percent of the time. We have essentially no defences against nuclear weapons. All we can do is try to ensure that they are never used.
For the arms industry, however, nuclear weapons—as horrifying as they are—are the gift that keeps on giving. The Biden administration’s $850 billion defence budget for 2025 allocates $69 billion to nuclear weapons operations and modernisation. Plans for 400 new ICBMs, new nuclear submarines and bombers, and upgrades to existing warheads are currently in the works, at a projected cost of three quarters of a trillion dollars over the next decade. MAD isn’t mad enough, it seems. Defence contractors, lobbyists, and right wing think tanks are concerned that 1,700 nuclear weapons are not enough and that “America’s enemies will become even more emboldened… while facing a hobbled and undersized American nuclear deterrent.”
Almost all the nuclear war games that military strategists have engaged in have invariably escalated to the point of Armageddon. Spending further billions to produce weapons whose sole purpose is to lead to nuclear annihilation will not make us safer. Far from enhancing American national security, or the security of the world, nuclear weapons will lead us to the edge of destruction.
I was proud to take the helm of the group established in 1947 by Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer to warn the world of the dangers of nuclear weapons, in part through the annual setting of the Doomsday Clock. But, sadly, that effort has been an abject failure. Perhaps Jacobsen’s new book, reportedly soon to be adapted for the big screen, may bring people to their senses. For the past 79 years, we have been lucky, but our luck may not hold forever. Even a single ICBM launch could lead to a war that abruptly ends over 400,000 years of modern hominid evolution, leaving little or no trace of human existence and of our other technological achievements—all in less time than it took me to write these words.
Lawrence M. Krauss
Lawrence M. Krauss, a theoretical physicist, is President of the Origins Project Foundation. His most recent book is “The Edge of Knowledge: Unsolved Mysteries of the Cosmos.”
Small reactors don’t add up as a viable energy source
By M.V. Ramana and Sophie Groll. 6 May 24, https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/engineering/small-reactors-dont-add-up/
The nuclear industry has been offering so-called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) as an alternative to large reactors as a possible solution to climate change.
SMRs are defined as nuclear reactors with a power output of less than 300 megawatts of electricity, compared to the typically 1000 to 1,500 megawatts power capacity of larger reactors.
Proponents assert that SMRs would cost less to build and thus be more affordable.
However, when evaluated on the basis of cost per unit of power capacity, SMRs will actually be more expensive than large reactors.
This ‘diseconomy of scale’ was demonstrated by the now-terminated proposal to build six NuScale Power SMRs (77 megawatts each) in Idaho in the United States.
The final cost estimate of the project per megawatt was around 250 percent more than the initial per megawatt cost for the 2,200 megawatts Vogtle nuclear power plant being built in Georgia, US.
Previous small reactors built in various parts of America also shut down because they were uneconomical.
The high cost of constructing SMRs on a per megawatt basis translates into high electricity production costs.
According to the 2023 GenCost report from the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Energy Market Operator, the estimated cost of generating each megawatt-hour of electricity from an SMR is around AUD$400 to AUD$600.
In comparison, the cost of each megawatt-hour of electricity from wind and solar photovoltaic plants is around AUD$100, even after accounting for the cost involved in balancing the variability of output from solar and wind plants.
Building SMRs has also been subject to delays. Russia’s KLT-40 took 13 years from when construction started to when it started generating electricity, instead of the expected three years.
Small reactors also raise all of the usual concerns associated with nuclear power, including the risk of severe accidents, the linkage to nuclear weapons proliferation, and the production of radioactive waste that has no demonstrated solution because of technical and social challenges.
One 2022 study calculated that various radioactive waste streams from SMRs would be larger than the corresponding waste streams from existing light water reactors.
The bottom line is that new reactor designs, such as SMRs, will not rescue nuclear power from its multiple problems. Any energy technology that is beset with such environmental problems and risks cannot be termed sustainable.
Nuclear energy itself has been declining in importance as a source of power: the fraction of the world’s electricity supplied by nuclear reactors has declined from a maximum of 17.5 percent in 1996 down to 9.2 percent in 2022. All indications suggest that the trend will continue if not accelerate.
The decline in the global share of nuclear power is driven by poor economics: generating power with nuclear reactors is costly compared to other low-carbon, renewable sources of energy and the difference between these costs is widening.
Nuclear reactors built during the last decade have all demonstrated a pattern of cost and time overruns in their construction.
The Vogtle nuclear power plant being built in Georgia, involving two reactors designed to generate around 1,100 megawatts of electricity each, is currently estimated to cost nearly USD$35 billion.
In 2011, when the utility company building the reactor sought permission from the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it projected a total cost of USD$14 billion, and ‘in-service dates of 2016 and 2017’ for the two units.
In France, the 1,630-megawatt European Pressurised Reactor being built in Flamanville was originally estimated to cost 3 billion euros and projected to start in 2012, but the cost has soared to an estimated 13.2 billion euros and is yet to start operating as of March 2024.
These cost increases and delays confirm the historical pattern identified in a study published in 2014: of the 180 nuclear power projects around the world it studied, 175 had exceeded their initial budgets, by an average of 117 percent, and took 64 percent longer than initially projected.
However, the recent projects are even more extreme in the magnitude of the disconnect between expectations and reality.
These reactor projects, and the Hinkley Point C project under construction in the United Kingdom, also confirm another historical pattern: costs of nuclear power plants go up with time, not down. This is unlike other energy technologies, such as solar and wind energy, where costs have declined rapidly with experience.
The climate crisis is urgent. The world has neither the financial resources nor the luxury of time to expand nuclear power. As physicist and energy analyst Amory Lovins argued: “… to protect the climate, we must save the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time.”
Expanding nuclear energy only makes the climate problem worse.
The money invested in nuclear energy would save far more carbon dioxide if it were instead invested in renewables.
And the reduction in emissions from investing in renewables would be far quicker.
M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. He is the author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India (Penguin Books, 2012) and Nuclear is not the Solution: The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change (forthcoming from Verso Books).
Sophie Groll is a master’s student at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada studying public policy and global affairs. Her focus is on environmental policy, low-carbon energy sources, and net-zero transition discourses.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
Canada’s federal budget -calls nuclear energy “clean” – the height of absurdity!
Nuclear energy never will be ‘clean,’ write Jones and Edwards
THE HILL TIMES | MONDAY, MAY 6, 2024
The 2024 federal budget contains many references to nuclear energy as
a “clean” source of electricity. In our view, referring to
nuclear electricity as “clean” is the height of absurdity.
The nuclear fuel chain begins with the mining of uranium from rock
underground where, without human intervention, it would remain safely
locked away from the biosphere. Uranium has many natural radioactive
byproducts, including radium, radon, and polonium-210 that are
discarded in voluminous sandlike “tailings” at uranium mine sites.
These materials are responsible for countless thousands of deaths in
North America alone. Canada has accumulated 220 million tonnes of
these indestructible radioactive mining wastes, easily dispersed by
wind and rain over the next 100,000 years.
Inside a nuclear reactor, uranium atoms are split to produce energy.
The atomic fragments are hundreds of newly created radioactive
poisons, most of them never found in nature before 1940. They make
used fuel millions of times more radioactive than the original
uranium. One used fuel bundle, freshly discharged, will deliver a
lethal dose of radiation in seconds to any unshielded human nearby.
There are hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste irradiated fuel
bundles worldwide and the quantity grows larger each year. There is no
operating repository anywhere in the world for such wastes, but there
are several failed repositories.
Radioactive waste has the “reverse midas touch” turning everything
it touches into more radioactive waste. This includes the nuclear
vessel in which the waste is created, and everything that comes in
contact with the cooling water needed to prevent the waste from
melting down. Containers for radioactive waste become radioactive
waste themselves. All radioactive waste must be kept out of our food,
air and drinking water for countless millennia.
Radioactive atoms are unstable. They disintegrate, throwing off a kind
of subatomic shrapnel called “atomic radiation.” Emissions from
disintegrating atoms damage living cells. Chronic radiation exposure
can cause miscarriages, birth defects, and a host of degenerative
diseases including cancers of all kinds. Genetic damage to eggs or
sperm can transmit defective genes to successive generations.
Plutonium is one of the hundreds of radioactive byproducts created in
used nuclear fuel. It is of special concern because it is the primary
nuclear explosive in nuclear arsenals worldwide. “Reprocessing” of
nuclear fuel waste to extract plutonium is sometimes called
“recycling” but this is disinformation; the resulting waste is
more difficult to manage than the original fuel waste. Many serious
accidents have occurred around the world at reprocessing plants.
Places where extensive reprocessing has occurred are among the most
radioactively contaminated sites on Earth. Plutonium can be used as a
nuclear fuel, but extracting it is a nuclear weapons proliferation
risk.
Managing radioactive waste is difficult and very expensive. The
projected multi-billion-dollar cleanup cost for the legacy waste at
Chalk River, Ont., is the federal government’s biggest environmental
liability by far, exceeding the sum total of all other federal
environmental liabilities across Canada.
The multinational consortium running Canada’s federal nuclear
laboratories is receiving close to $1.5-billion annually, much of it
for managing legacy radioactive wastes. The consortium’s plans
include piling up one million tonnes of waste in a giant mound beside
the Ottawa River and entombing old reactors in concrete and grout
beside major drinking water sources. Many are of the view that the
plans fail to meet the fundamental requirement to isolate waste from
the biosphere and have been met with widespread concern, opposition
and legal challenges. Nuclear energy is not now, never has been, and
never will be “clean.”
The sooner our elected officials come to terms with this fact, the
better for Canada and Canadians. Honesty is the best policy.
This week’s news about the military-industrial-nuclear-communications ecosystem
Some bits of good news – The positive impact of conservation action. The ‘Green Nobel Prize’ announced its winners. Solar Balconies Are Booming in Germany and You Can Plug in and Install Them Yourself
TOP STORIES.
72 Minutes Until the End of the World? Is There Life Beyond Nuclear Armageddon?
Five Things the “Nuclear Bros” Don’t Want You to Know About Small Modular Reactors.
University Investments: Divesting from the Military-Industrial Complex.
Bill before Australian Parliament would allow UK and USA to dump decades of high-level nuclear waste in Australia.
Climate. ‘Inside an oven’: sweltering heat ravages crops and takes lives in south-east Asia. Brutal 48C heatwave takes its toll on east Asia. – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/05/06/1-b1-inside-an-oven-sweltering-heat-ravages-crops-and-takes-lives-in-south-east-asia/
Noel’s notes. The global nuclear industry – rotten to the core. Small modular reactors – yes -the nuclear lobby will keep hyping them – no matter what!
AUSTRALIA.
- Parliamentarians renew their support for the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cvo1cOMpxE “History is Calling: Australia and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” .
- Bill lets UK/US “dump nuclear submarine waste here” Critical worker shortage menaces nuclear-powered submarine workforce, Start thinking now about alternatives to AUKUS Pillar 1.
- Staggering rise of clean energy in China a wake-up call to Australia – including on nuclear.
- Nuclear power makes no sense for Australia – but it’s a useful diversion from real climate action.
- Murrumbidgee Council launches survey on establishing nuclear power generator near Coleambally, Darlington Point or Jerilderie. Bowen says Coalition’s nuclear push would put grid reliability at risk due to delays in coal plant closures.
- Off the Books: how the Army privatised SAS elite to dark ops outfit Omni
- Australia and the F-35 supply chain: in lockstep with Lockheed.
**************************************************************************
NUCLEAR ISSUES
| ARTS. UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities to join new “Rock Solid2” art exhibition. | CIVIL LIBERTIES. Academic arrested for “statements against Zionism” as Israel intensifies anti-genocide crackdown.Enforcing Silence on Genocide. | CULTURE.Israel’s Defenders Talk So Much About Feelings Because They Can’t Talk About Facts |
| ECONOMICS.Industrial action by nuclear submarine workforce hits Rolls Royce.UK government pushing institutional investors to support Sizewell C nuclear project. A new nuclear energy law will likely mean higher utility bills. Georgia’s Vogtle 2 nuclear reactors cost over $30Billion, – but were meant to cost $14Billion | ENERGY.G7 Countries Task IRENA to Monitor Group’s Renewable Energy Progress.Germany records 50 hours of negative electricity prices for April, largely due to renewables.California hits stunning new solar and battery records in postcard from energy future. Huge success of renewable energy in California – over 100% of demand for many days |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. Israel ‘undoubtedly’ committing genocide says Holocaust scholar Amos Goldberg. | HEALTH. Dounreay & Scottish Nuclear Policy.. ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/05/01/2-b1-dounreay-scottish-nuclear-policy/ | INDIGENOUS ISSUES. First Nations leaders voice opposition to nuclear power plants.Land Defence Alliance stands united against the burial of nuclear waste.Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) responds to Land Defence Alliance protest. | HUMAN RIGHTS. New US Antisemitism Law Turns Critics Against Israeli Genocide Into Criminals. |
| LEGAL. INTERNATIONAL DARK SKY ASSOCIATION vs. FCC AND SPACEX. How Israel violates International Law in Gaza: expert report. | MEDIA. The Vow from Hiroshima film is coming on PBS, this month. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RcSCgUBrUc New Book – The Scientists Who Alerted Us to the Dangers of Radiation. Gaza Journalists Killed by Israel Honored on World Press Freedom Day. As Peace Protests Are Violently Suppressed, CNN Paints Them as Hate Rallies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOBEHXtWMRI |
| POLITICS. Inside story: Will Iran’s supreme leader revise his ‘nuclear fatwa’? US Presidential candidate arrested at anti-Israel protest. France’s Macron wants to build 14 new Nuclear reactors by 2050. 6 is more realistic. France Increases State Funding for Advanced Nuclear R&D Project. UK / Parliamentary Committee Chair Criticises Lack Of Clarity On SMR Plans. Why UK Government nuclear quango has ruled out Trawsfynydd from initial mini-nuke rollout. The breadth and depth of the nuclear lobby in Canada. | POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Why Iran may accelerate its nuclear program, and Israel may be tempted to attack it. US vs China, Israel vs Iran, India vs Pakistan: Asia plays with fire as nuclear war safety net frays. |
| SAFETY. Alarm over nuclear safety lapses on the Clyde. Fears raised over Wales accident risk involving aircraft carrying nuclear materials. IAEA’s top nuclear salesman-cum-watchdog, Rafael Grossi, to visit Iran | SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS.Dead satellites are filling space with trash. That could affect Earth’s magnetic field. Nukes in space: Why a very very stupid idea just became more likely. |
| TECHNOLOGY. A Closer Look at Two Operational Small Modular Reactor Designs. Can floating nuclear power plants help solve Northern Canada’s energy woes?. (ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/05/05/2-b1-can-floating-nuclear-power-plants-help-solve-northern-canadas-energy-woes/) Small reactors don’t add up as a viable energy source. Small modular reactors aren’t the energy answer for remote communities and mines. ARC might need to redesign its SMR technology: former president + US bans import of enriched uranium + more to the story | URANIUM. US cutoff of Russian uranium imports viable but costly to replace. | WASTES. The undersea nuclear graveyard now more costly than HS2. Barrels Of Radioactive Waste Turn Up Off The Coast Of California. To find a place to store spent nuclear fuel, Congress needs to stop trying to revive Yucca Mountain. Toxic sewage discharged at Chalk River nuclear lab. Nuclear-waste compensation (?bribery) numbers raise eyebrows. |
| WAR and CONFLICT. The Israel-US game plan for Gaza is staring us in the face. Israel’s Finance Minister Smotrich calls for ‘total annihilation’ of Gaza. CodePink – Tell President Biden: WE WANT COOPERATION, NOT CONFLICT! NATO using war games to ‘prepare for conflict’ – Moscow. | WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.Zelensky wants ten more years of US funding. NATO state rejects €100 billion Ukraine war chest ‘madness’. US Air Force pays $13 billion for new ‘doomsday’ planes that protect president during a nuclear attack . The Fight Over THAAD in Korea. |
Bill lets UK/US “dump nuclear submarine waste here”
Ben Packam 6 May 24
The British company appointed to build Australia’s nuclear submarines says the government’s draft nuclear safety laws would allow the disposal in Australia of high -level radioactive wastes from UK submarines.
BAE Systems chief counsel made observation at committee hearing examining the government’s naval nuclear power safety bill, which is due to be pushed through Parliament after next week’s federal budget………….
Under questioing by Greens Senator David Shoebridge, BAE’s Peter Quinlivian agreed that the wording of the bill opened a pathway for the disposal of high-level British radioactive waste in Australia.
“The legislation as drafted is in language that would accommodate that scenario” he said.
Britain is yet to dispose of any of the nuclear submarines it has decommissioned since the 1980s. It estimates it won’t fully dispose of the boats, plus seven more dure to retire in coming years, until the late 2060s.
Mr Quinlivian said that BAE had not informed the British government of the prospects that Australia could legally dispose of its nuclear waste “because it didn’t immediately strike us”
The apparent loophole flies in the face of Australia’s reassurances that AUKUS won’t require us to become a dumping ground for other countries’ nuclear wastes.
Liberal Senator David Fawcett asked Defence officials in the April 22 committee hearing whether the bill could be amended to avoid unintended consequences, something that the government is understood to be open to.
In a written response, Defence conceded that a tightening of the bill’s language could be needed. It said specifying the “disposal” of only “Australian submarine” nuclear waste would be consistent with government policy, but the government would have to “carefully consider any amendment which excluded the possibility of regulatory control of the management of low level radioactive waste from UK or US submarines……………….
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety agency is poised to declare a site at the HMAS Stirling naval base off Perth as a low level radioactive waste management facility, but a decision on where to store high level waste from Australia’s planned nuclear submarines is years if not decades away
Defence Minister Richard Marles said that after the government announced its nuclear submarine plans in March 2023, Australia would not take nuclear waste from its AUKUS partners
“We’re not talking about establishing a civil nuclear industry, nor are we talking about opening Australia up as a repository for nuclear waste from other countries” he told the ABC.
Senator Shoebridge said that British bureaucrats were almost certainly “rubbing their hands together at the prospect of the Albanese government being foolish enough to pass this bill”
“Minister Marles has now been embarrassed by not only his own department but the very people he signed up to make the nuclear subs” he said.
The Senate standing committee on foreign affairs defence and trade is to release its report on the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 on May 11.
Off the Books: how the Army privatised SAS elite to dark ops outfit Omni
Michael West Media, by Stuart McCarthy | May 4, 2024
Former SAS officers referred to national corruption watchdog over $230 million in government contracts to private security and intelligence “front company” Omni Executive. A Stuart McCarthy investigation.
According to the company’s website, Omni was established in 2012 and focuses on “delivering innovative national security, intelligence and critical infrastructure solutions to further our national interests.”
Since 2015, Omni has been awarded more than $230 million in security and intelligence related contracts by the departments of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Home Affairs, Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.
Omni contracts hidden……………………………………………………………….. more https://michaelwest.com.au/army-privatised-sas-elite-to-dark-ops-outfit-omni/
Is There Life Beyond Nuclear Armageddon?
Bruce Dorminey, Senior Contributor, Forbes, 30 Apr 24
Earth is a very rare jewel of a planet. A completely serendipitous chance encounter with a Mars-sized impactor some 4.5 billion years ago created our anomalously large moon which to this day gives our planet its stable axial tilt. All of which enabled our planet to evolve its current life-rich biosphere.
Yet only in the last 300,000 years or so have we been around long enough to watch Earth’s civilizations come and go. And only within the last hundred years have we created weapons of mass destruction so powerful that if used in anger, they could wipe out billions of years of biological evolution.
Given recent geopolitics, however, in fifty years’ time I wouldn’t bet on there being anybody here to ponder such philosophical musings.
Thus, could life survive a full-scale nuclear war?
A nuclear Armageddon might be broadly similar to the K/Pg impact (the “dinosaur killer”) some 66 million years ago, Ariel Anbar, a geochemist and President’s Professor at Arizona State University in Tempe, told me via email. But in terms of the energy released the impact was thousands of times larger than even an all-out nuclear war would release, he says. Nuclear war also brings with it radiation that can drive mutations, which is a special kind of “nasty” but both scenarios are more than enough to bring down human civilization, says Anbar.
Most if not all of humanity would simply disappear.
My suspicion is that something like 99.9% of all humans would die, and our civilization would never rebound, Bruce Lieberman, a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, told me via email. Either we wouldn’t survive, or it would be so bad for those few that lived that they would be better off if they didn’t survive, says Lieberman.
But Would Our Biosphere Survive?
Earth’s biosphere would survive even though it would take a big hit, says Anbar. Leaving aside the consequences of radioactive fallout, a nuclear war would be less severe than the K/Pg impact some 66 million years ago, he says. The consequences of nuclear fallout from a global exchange are hard to gauge since there’s a lot we do not know, says Anbar. But plenty of animals would likely survive so evolution is not likely to be “reset” back to microbes, he says.
How would nuclear Armageddon compare to natural planet killers that have befallen planet Earth, such as giant asteroids, comets as well as nearby gamma ray bursts or supernova explosions?
Life eventually rebounded after each of these mass extinctions, though it took at least 10-20 million years for diversity to reach former levels and for ecosystems to return to their pre-extinction levels of complexity, says Lieberman.
Even so, Lieberman says a global nuclear holocaust would cause a tremendous initial loss in biodiversity, perhaps on the order of 70% to 95% of all animal and plant species on land and 25% to 50% in the oceans.
The lesson here is that our planet’s fate can turn on a dime…………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2024/04/30/is-there-life-beyond-nuclear-armageddon/?sh=30cdf0a04eb0
Nukes in space: Why a very very stupid idea just became more likely
Fears of a Cold War nightmare are resurfacing.
Tom Howarth, May 4, 2024, https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/nukes-in-space
Could a nuke be used in space? Last month, Russia seemingly took a step toward making the idea a reality. In defiance of a US and Japan-sponsored UN resolution, the country vetoed plans to prevent the development and deployment of off-world nuclear weapons.
Fortunately, the country didn’t actually threaten to launch such a device into space, an act that would violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. However, the UN representative for Russia did call the new resolution a “cynical ploy” and claimed “we are being tricked”.
But what would actually happen if Russia – or any other country – detonated a nuke above Earth? The worrying answer: such an explosion could be as devastating as one on ground level.
What happens if you detonate a nuclear warhead in space?
There are some pretty stark differences between setting off a nuke at ground level and up in orbit.
“When nuclear weapons go off on the ground, a lot of energy is initially released as X-rays,” Dr Michael Mulvihill, vice chancellor research fellow at Teesside University, tells BBC Science Focus.
“Those X-rays superheat the atmosphere, causing it to explode into a fireball – that’s what produces the shockwave and characteristic mushroom cloud that sucks up dirt and produces fallout.”
But in space there is no atmosphere. So no mushroom clouds or shockwaves are formed when you set off a nuke in space. That doesn’t mean the effects are any less terrifying, however.
“In space, a nuclear explosion releases a huge amount of energy as X-rays, gamma rays, intense flows of neutrons and subatomic charged particles. It also produces what’s known as an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP,” Mulvihill says.
An EMP is effectively a burst of electromagnetic energy; when one interacts with the upper atmosphere, it strips electrons from it, blinding radar systems, knocking out communications and wiping out power systems.
After the initial explosion, a belt of radiation wraps around the Earth that persists for months, possibly even years – no one knows for sure. The radiation can damage satellites and, as Mulvihill points out, would pose a serious risk to anyone in space at the time – such as astronauts on the ISS.
“The EMP would knock out power systems on the ISS, effectively destroying the life support systems and everything that circulates the atmosphere within the space station. And I imagine the astronauts would be exposed to high levels of radiation too,” Mulvihill explains.
“It would be highly hostile to life in orbit.”
Space is becoming more and more crowded with satellites – approximately 10,000 satellites are in low earth orbit right now, and tens of thousands more are planned for launch in the coming years. This significantly raises the stakes of unleashing nuclear energy in space, as we become more reliant on the systems we put into orbit.
From ground level, however, other than blowing power grids and disrupting communications, the effects could also be somewhat beautiful.
As charged particles from the explosion interact with the Earth’s magnetic field and the atmosphere, they would cause brilliant auroras, stretching across huge distances that could last for days. So there’s that, at least.
Have nuclear explosions reached space before?
Unsurprisingly, during the Cold War, global superpowers (namely, the US and Russia) tested nukes in just about every scenario imaginable. On land, underwater, in a mountain – you name it, they tried blowing it up.
It comes as no surprise then, that detonating nuclear weapons in space has been done before. In total, the US conducted five space nuclear tests in space; the most famous of which, according to Mulvihill, occurred on 9 July 1962 near(ish) to the Pacific island paradise of Hawaii.
Starfish Prime was launched 400km (250 miles) above Johnston Island and had an explosive power of 1.4 megatons – about 100 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.
The EMP was much larger than expected, compromising the classified nature of the test as streetlights and phone lines were knocked out in Hawaii 1,450 km (900 miles) away from the detonation point.
The ensuing red auroras stretched across the Pacific Ocean and lasted for hours.
“At the time there were around 22 satellites in space, of which around a third were knocked out,” Mulvihill says. The casualties included the world’s first TV communication satellite, Telstar 1, which had been a beacon of US technological development until Starfish Prime caused it to prematurely fail after just seven months in orbit.
In the following years, everyone came to their senses a bit and decided that testing nuclear warheads in space constituted a bad idea. Thus, the Outer Space Treaty (OST) was born.
Signed in 1967 by the US, UK and Soviet Union, the OST now has over 100 signatories and designates space as free for all to use for peaceful purposes only. The world breathed a sigh of relief and got on with using space for nice things like astronomy, space stations and WiFi for the next 60 years. So, what’s changed?
How worried should we be?
Rumours of a change in the orbital security situation began swirling when earlier this year the US House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Turner issued a vague warning about a “serious national security threat” posed by Russia.
Following this, news outlets began reporting that the threat pertained to a possible “nuclear weapon in space”.
“It’s certainly concerning, but don’t lose sleep over it,” Mulvihill says. “Russia is still a signatory of the OST, so any sort of weapon in space would be absolutely illegal.”
He also points out that as Starfish Prime demonstrated, nuclear weapons in space are indiscriminate, meaning any detonation would do just as much damage to Russia and its allies as anyone else.
“It wouldn’t just knock out Starlink [the SpaceX system of satellites that provides internet to 75 countries]. It would knock out Chinese satellites and everyone else’s too.”
Another possibility, Mulvihill thinks, is that countries could develop nuclear-powered ‘jammers’. In other words, not a bomb (phew), but something that uses nuclear power to generate a signal that could disrupt, rather than destroy, other satellites.
Ultimately, though, this could all be little more than geopolitical posturing. “Deterrence is all about messaging and trying to persuade somebody that you would do it without ever actually getting there. I think that’s probably the psychology that’s going on with this,” Mulvihill concludes.
Inside story: Will Iran’s supreme leader revise his ‘nuclear fatwa’?
https://amwaj.media/article/inside-story-will-iran-s-supreme-leader-revise-his-nuclear-fatwa 5 May 24
The direct confrontation between Iran and Israel has sparked speculation about a potential shift in the Islamic Republic’s nuclear policies under the leadership of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Following Iran’s Apr. 14 military action against Israel in response to the Apr. 1 bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, a senior commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) explicitly suggested the possibility of a revision to Tehran’s objection to atomic weapons. The suggestion may only be a part of the war of words between Iran and Israel. However, the fact that such discourse is rapidly becoming mainstream in Iran raises questions of what may lie ahead—including whether a shift may take place under Khamenei, who has long opposed atomic weapons on a religious basis.
Rapidly changing discourse
Amid media speculations of a major Israeli attack in response to Iran’s Apr. 14 drone and missile strike on sites inside Israel, Gen. Ahmad Haqtalab—the commander of the Protection and Security Corps of Nuclear Centers—on Apr. 18 stated, “If the Zionist regime wants to use the threat of attacking our country’s nuclear centers as a tool to pressure Iran, it is possible to review the nuclear doctrine and policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and deviate from the previous considerations.”
The warning was rare, and even as tensions eased between Tehran and Tel Aviv, Iranian officials continued to underscore the significance of the matter. Four days after Haqtalab’s intervention, former IRGC commander and current MP Javad Karimi Qoddousi tweeted, “If permission is issued, there will be [only a] week before the first [nuclear] test.” Qoddousi separately posited that the same amount of time was needed to test missiles with an increased range of 12,000 km (7,456 miles).
However, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanani promptly interjected, dismissing the notion of any alteration to the country’s nuclear doctrine. Meanwhile, government-run Iran daily slammed Qoddousi, characterizing his statements as “untrue” and possibly being exploited by “enemies” to pursue further sanctions and fear mongering against Iran. Several other outlets, including conservative-run media, notably echoed such criticisms.
Yet, despite the blowback, Qoddousi went ahead and posted a video on Apr. 25 in which he said that Iran needs only half a day to produce the 90%-enriched uranium necessary to build nuclear bombs.
Khamenei and the ‘nuclear fatwa’
In Shiite Islam, a fatwa is a religious edict issued by a high-ranking Islamic jurist on the basis of interpretation of Islamic law. To followers of the jurist in question, fatwas are binding and the primary point of reference for everything from major life decisions to day-to-day matters. Fatwas can also be a part of state policies.
Ayatollah Khamenei has on multiple occasions over the past two decades reiterated his objection to the development, stockpiling, and usage of nuclear weapons as haram or religiously impermissible. Among believers, violating what is deemed haram would have serious consequences both in this life and the hereafter. In 2010, the supreme leader reiterated his objection to weapons of mass destruction in a message to an international conference on nuclear disarmament, stating they “pose a serious threat to humanity” and that “everyone must make efforts to secure humanity against this great calamity.”
Critics of what became known as the nuclear fatwa have over the years raised a variety of objections, from the modality of Khamenei’s religious edict to the manner in which it has been presented. Some even question whether the ruling really exists. What is indisputable, however, is that the religious edict has previously averted conflict by aiding diplomacy.
For instance, in connection with the 2013-15 nuclear negotiations that led to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and world powers—which saw Tehran agree to restrictions on its atomic program in exchange for sanctions relief—there were suggestions that the Islamic Republic should codify the fatwa.
Amid the nuclear negotiations with Iran, then-US secretary of state John Kerry in 2014 stated, “We take [Khamenei’s fatwa] very seriously….a fatwa issued by a cleric is an extremely powerful statement about intent. Our need is to codify it.” In another interview the same year, Kerry asserted that “the requirement here is to translate the fatwa into a legally binding, globally recognized, international understanding…that goes beyond an article of faith within a religious belief.”
Only days after the signing of the JCPOA in 2015, Khamenei said, “The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it is not true. We had a fatwa, declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden under Islamic law. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.”
Will Khamenei change his fatwa?
Khamenei is not the first Iranian Islamic jurist to issue a fateful religious edict on a highly politicized matter. Back in 1891, Mirza Mohammad Shirazi (1815-95), a leading Shiite religious authority at the time, issued a hokm or verdict against the usage of tobacco in what became known as the Tobacco Protest. The move came in protest against a concession granted by the Qajar monarch Naser Al-Din (1848-98) to the British Empire, granting control over the growth, sale, and export of tobacco to an Englishman. The hokm issued by Shirazi ultimately led to the repeal of the concession.
Neither a fatwa nor a hokm is set in stone and can be revised. The main distinction between the two types of rulings is that a hokm tends to have more conditions and requirements attached to it. Moreover, while a fatwa must be followed by the followers of the Islamic jurist who issued it, a hokm must be followed by all believers—including Shiites who are not followers of the jurist in question.
Explaining the intricacies of a hokm, a cleric and professor of Islamic law (fiqh) at the Qom Seminary told Amwaj.media, “There are primary hokm and secondary hokm. The former is like the necessity of the daily prayer that is mentioned in the Quran and the hadiths [traditions], or the prohibition on consuming alcohol. The secondary hokm is based on expediency and necessity that leads to the first ruling being changed. For example, if alcohol helps someone stay alive, then it is not haram [religiously impermissible] for him or her [to make use of it].” He added, “A fatwa can be changed too.”
TODAY. Small modular reactors – yes -the nuclear lobby will keep hyping them – no matter what!
Well, we all do know why. The small nuclear reactor (SMR)power industry – moribund though it is, is essential for the nuclear weapons industry – for a number of reasons, but importantly – to put a sweet gloss on that murderous industry.
Never mind that USA’s NuScale’s SMRs were a resounding flop – NuScale is still being touted, along with all the other little nuclear unicorns manouvreing to get tax-payer funding.
The facts remain, and apparently just need to be hammered again and again:
SMRs are not cheap, not safe, do not reduce wastes, are not reliable for off-grid power, are not more efficient fuel users than are large reactors.
The latest hyped -up push for SMRs is in Canada – with the boast that they will benefit indigenous communities . Successful bribery of indigenous people would give a huge boost to the global nuclear lobby, – as indigenous people have historically been the most distrustful of uranium mining and of the whole nuclear fuel chain.
The gimmicks this time are floating nuclear power plants – barges carrying Westinghouse’s eVinci microreactors. These would take over from the current deisal power plants serving remote communities. There are already some solar, wind and battery projects – frowned upon by the nuclear lobby, of course.
These projects are being strongly promoted, but poorly explained to indigenous communities, would bring radiological hazards along Canada’s Northern shoreline
And what really are the chances that these little nuclear power sources would be effective anyway? Recent reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reveal that while 83 small nuclear reactors are “in development”, but there are only 2 in operation.
In both cases, the development of the reactors was a very lengthy and expensive process.
The Chinese SMR HTR-PM- “Between January and December 2022, the reactors operated for only 27 hours out of a possible maximum of 8,760 hours. In the subsequent three months, they seem to have operated at a load factor of around 10 percent.”
For the Russian SMR – “The operating records of the two KLT-40S reactors have been quite poor. According to the IAEA’s PRIS [Power Reactor Information System] database, the two reactors had load factors of just 26.4 and 30.5 percent respectively in 2022, and lifetime load factors of just 34 and 22.4 percent.”
Will Canada’s remote indigenous communitites buy the duplicitous nuclear lobby’s propaganda on SMRs ? And then, subsequently, will the rest of us buy it, despite the facts. I guess that the corporate media will help, – if lies are repeated often enough, people come to believe them.
1.This month.
14 May Industrial Decarbonisation Summit
Sydney Get involved at eec.org.au/summit-registration
15- 16 May Sydney – EEC National Conference Efficiency Electrification Decarbonisation more https://eec.my.canva.site/eecnc24
The video on Palestine that got Yanis Varoufakis BANNED from Germany
Keep U.S. military expansion out of Australia
Petition EN5543 – Call for termination of the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement
Antinuclear 