Regional voters reject gas led recovery, support investment in renewables — RenewEconomy
New survey confirms that some of the Morrison government’s most ardent supporters of coal and gas are largely out of step with the views of their own electorates. The post Regional voters reject gas led recovery, support investment in renewables appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Regional voters reject gas led recovery, support investment in renewables — RenewEconomy
”Every euro invested in nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse’
Every euro invested in nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse’ https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-climate-mycle-schneider-renewables-fukushima/a-56712368 29 Aug 21
Can nuclear energy help us meet climate goals? The editor of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, Mycle Schneider, says no. He explains his stance to DW.
And if we’re talking about the construction of new power plants, then nuclear power is simply excluded. Not just because it is the most expensive form of electricity generation today, but, above all, because it takes a long time to build reactors. In other words, every euro invested in new nuclear power plants makes the climate crisis worse because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options.
As Japan marks the 10th anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the global conversation around the merits of using nuclear power to tackle the climate crisis remains hot. Many environmentalists are opposed, pointing to the risk of nuclear meltdowns and the difficulty of properly disposing of nuclear waste.
However, it has been championed by others for its ability to produce huge amounts of carbon-free energy. DW spoke to Mycle Schneider, editor of the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR), which assesses the status and trends of the global nuclear power industry.
DW: The goal is to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). What role can nuclear power play?
Mycle Schneider: Today we need to put the question of urgency first. It’s about how much we can reduce greenhouse gases and how quickly for every euro ($1.21) spent. So, it’s a combination between cost and feasibility, while doing it in the fastest possible way.
And if we’re talking about the construction of new power plants, then nuclear power is simply excluded. Not just because it is the most expensive form of electricity generation today, but, above all, because it takes a long time to build reactors. In other words, every euro invested in new nuclear power plants makes the climate crisis worse because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options.
What about existing nuclear power plants?
The power plants exist, they provide electricity. However, many of the measures needed for energy efficiency are now cheaper than the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants. That is the first point, and unfortunately it is always forgotten.
The second point is that renewables today have become so cheap that in many cases they are below the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants.
Let me give you two examples: The world’s lowest price for solar power in currently in Portugal, at 1.1 cents per kilowatt hour. And we now have the first results from Spain with costs for wind and solar power at around 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour. These are below the basic operating costs of the vast majority of nuclear power plants around the world.
It would often even be affordordable to pay 1 – 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity storage in addition to the generation costs for wind and solar power and still be below the operating costs of nuclear power plants. And here we have to ask the same question: How many emissions can I avoid with one euro, one dollar or one yuan?
So why are construction projects being announced now?
n the case of nuclear power, I often have the feeling that Trumpism prevails. Facts no longer matter. There is talk of plans and projects all over the place, but in reality, little or nothing actually happens. We document this in detail every year in the more than 300 pages of our World Nuclear Industry Status Report.
What sort of interests are behind this?
These are very clear self-interests. If the industry doesn’t launch phantom projects, then it will die even faster.
Why do politicians go along with it?
There are different interests here. During a visit to the Le Creusot forge in December 2020, for example, French President [Emmanuel] Macron made it clear that there are also military strategic interests in maintaining the nuclear industry. And France has never made a secret of the links between military and civil interests when it comes to nuclear.
In other countries like China there are different interests. China is funding infrastructure in a large number of countries through its Belt and Road Initiative, also known as the New Silk Road. This is geopolitics on a grand scale.
The co-financing of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in Great Britain, for example, puts this into context. In this case, the fact that it is an inefficient project is irrelevant. The scale of Chinese infrastructure investments is huge. There’s talk of $1,000 billion (€821 billion). That means: You have to look at each country, because each country has their own self-interests.
What other interests do energy companies have in continuing to operate unprofitable reactors?
The main reason is that an operating nuclear power plant generates income. As soon as a nuclear power plant is decommissioned, liabilities appear in the balance sheet and additional expenses appear.
You can see an example of this in Japan. If often took years to officially close nuclear power plants because companies could not afford to remove these plants from their assets. Some of these operators would have gone bankrupt overnight.
There’s no doubt that energy companies like EDF in France face a serious financial crisis. The question is, how will they survive this? Certainly not without the help of massive state subsidies in the long term. But as long as they can keep earning money, even if it’s no longer profitable, investing in demolition and waste management isn’t a consideration.
How much does demolition cost?
In the order of €1 billion per reactor. In France, only a third of [the required funds] have been put aside. This means the problem starts once the reactors go offline.
What about the costs of the storage of high-level radioactive waste?
No one knows how much this really costs, because there is no functioning permanent storage facility.
Is there any chance of a permanent storage facility being operational in the future?
There is currently no operational permanent storage facility. The most advanced projects are in Finland and Sweden. However, the concept there is based on a design from the early 1980s, with storage in copper containers. However, recent research has shown that the copper containers are significantly more susceptible to corrosion than first thought. That means the viability of commissioning one of these facilities in Sweden or Finland is still totally unclear. It’s the same situation for other countries. They are even further behind on development or they don’t even have storage models, let alone locations.
How far along in this process are countries in Asia?
In Japan there is still no storage location or model. The same goes for Korea. In China they’re discussing whether or not nuclear waste should be reprocessed. That’s even further away.
Basically, these countries behave just like countries in the West where the nuclear power plants were built two or three decades ago. That means there is no advanced planning in place and no coherent concept as to how their highly radioactive nuclear waste should be stored for eternity.
Mycle Schneider is the initiator and lead author of the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report, an independent reference report on the development of the global nuclear power industry. Schneider is an independent consultant to governments and international organizations around the world. In 1997 he was awarded the Alternative Nobel Prize (Right Livelihood Award).
This interview was conducted by Gero Rueter and adapted into English by Ineke Mules.
Australia’s biggest climate poll shows support for action in every seat
Australia’s biggest climate poll shows support for action in every seat
The survey of 15,000 Australians found 67pc believe the government should do more to tackle climate change, including a majority in all 151 national seats.
August 29 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Louisiana Hasn’t Yet Recovered From Two Major Hurricanes In 2020. Now Another Is Taking Aim” • Five named storms struck Louisiana in 2020. Two of them were major hurricanes, doing a total of $18.75 billion in damages. As the state still reels from the destruction, another major hurricane is now barreling toward the […]
August 29 Energy News — geoharvey
August 28 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “A Carbon Tax That Sends Americans Checks Could Pass This Fall: Interview” • The Senate will be voting on a reconciliation package soon. One of the things in that package is a proposed carbon tax that would actually use the funds from the carbon tax to create jobs, grow the economy, and even […]
August 28 Energy News — geoharvey
Why the nuclear lobby spruiks about climate change (when they really couldn’t care less) – theme for August 2021
It’s a breathtaking hypocrisy, in this month when we remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki – but the real purpose for new ”advanced”nuclear technology is simply support for nuclear weapons. ”Small nuclear reactors” have no hope of affecting global heating – quite the reverse – as they take funding and human energy away from genuine solutions.
Why does the nuclear lobby bang on about climate change?
Simply in order to get tax breaks and other financial incentives that go with being accepted as ”green” and ”sustainable”
This is why the nuclear industry, IAEA, and all the associated bodies and governments are bent on convincing everybody that the goal of nuclear power is to fight climate change.
The journalists buy their arguments, because those arguments are cleverly dressed up in technicaljargon – avoiding discussion of matters that journalists might understand better, (such as the costs, waste disposal problems, environmental and health impacts)
The essential connection with nuclear weapons is obscured, making everybody involved feel better.
Need to investigate ANSTO’s tax-payer funded, loss-making, unnecessary nuclear medicine production
Australian government watcher, 28 Aug 21, The production of isotopes for medical purposes by nuclear reactors is a declining industry due to its inherently dangerous and risky nature and its extremely high manufacturing costs
These isotopes are being replaced by cyclotron produced isotopes which are practically and completely free of any risk to the patients and can be produced by relatively easier and safer means at a greatly reduced costs
The only reason that isotopes produced by nuclear reactors are used for medical purposes is that their manufacture is highly and unrealistically subsidised by government grants as is the case with ANSTO in Australia
The rapid growth in the international use of cyclotron isotopes for medical therapies is making the production of isotopes by nuclear reactors obsolete
As a result the continued production of isotopes for medical purposes by ANSTO at Lucas Heights could be stopped
immediately with huge savings in government expenditure and no effect on the provision of medical therapies
There were also arguments within ANSTO against the proposed corporatising of the medical isotopes production since this would expose all of its problems including its obsolete and outdated status and the extremely high production costs
In addition there are concerns both externally and within ANSTO internally about the cost and marketing difficulties with the Synroc technology which is far from the initially promoted commercial success and has been overtaken in many countries by their own developed alternatives to reduce the volume of nuclear waste and treat it to make it suitable for long-term storage and eventual disposal
In view of this it is essential for a full and proper independent inquiry and investigation into ANSTO to determine the true situation and make practical and hopefully cost saving recommendations as to its future operations
Australian Labor Party backs bills to de-register most political parties
Australian Labor Party backs bills to de-register most political parties, WSWS, Mike Head, 25 August 2021 In a nakedly anti-democratic and self-serving move, the Labor Party’s parliamentary caucus this week agreed to assist the Liberal-National Coalition government push four far-reaching electoral bills through parliament with breakneck speed.
As a result of Labor’s complicity, the bills could be rammed through both houses of parliament and become law within days. In fact, the three main bills were rushed through the House of Representatives yesterday.There has been virtually no public discussion or media coverage on this historic attack, unveiled suddenly last week on the eve of the next federal election, which is due by May next year.
The bills contain a host of measures to suppress alternative political parties and the basic rights of voters. Neither the Morrison government nor Labor has offered any explanation as to why these bills have been brought forward now, seemingly out of the blue……..
The most sweeping provision in the bills seeks to strip party registration from every party not currently represented in parliament. It would compel parties to provide lists and details of 1,500 members—triple the existing requirement—within three months of the laws passing, all in the middle of widespread lockdowns.
Without party registration, federal election candidates for the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) and 35 other currently registered parties would be prevented from having their names and thus identifying their political affiliations on ballot papers. Their candidates would have to stand without any party name, or as undifferentiated and unexplained “independents.”
…….. Predictably, the existing parliamentary parties would continue to be exempt from any membership requirement whatsoever. They could well have difficulty nominating 1,500 members, unless they could count MPs, staffers, trade union officials and other office holders.
……… The only provision that Labor will not support is the lowering of “political campaigner” financial disclosure obligations for advocacy, welfare, environmental and other groups that participate in election campaigns.
…………. The same bipartisan front has been formed on every attack on fundamental democratic rights over the past two decades. This includes the repeated tightening of police-state “terrorism” laws, the “foreign interference” legislation to potentially outlaw links to international or overseas parties, and the 2017–2018 expulsion of members of parliament who were possibly entitled to dual citizenship, effectively disqualifying millions of people with immigrant backgrounds from even nominating for election.https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/08/26/elea-a26.html
International Atomic Energy Agency doubts the ability of Japan to clean up Fukushima nuclear wreck by intended date 2051
UN team: Unclear if Fukushima cleanup can finish by 2051, MARI YAMAGUCHI, THE PRESS DEMOCRAT, ASSOCIATED PRESS, August 27, 2021,
TOKYO — Too little is known about melted fuel inside damaged reactors at the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant, even a decade after the disaster, to be able to tell if its decommissioning can be finished by 2051 as planned, a U.N. nuclear agency official said Friday.
“Honestly speaking, I don’t know, and I don’t know if anybody knows,” said Christophe Xerri, head of an International Atomic Energy Agency team reviewing progress in the plant’s cleanup.
“We need to gather more information on the fuel debris and more experience on the retrieval of the fuel debris to know if the plan can be completed as expected in the next 30 years,” he told reporters.
The cleanup plan depends on how the melted fuel needs to be handled for long-term storage and management, he said.
The IAEA team’s review, the fifth since the disaster, was mostly conducted online due to the coronavirus pandemic. Only Xerri and another team member visited the plant this week before compiling and submitting a report to Japan’s government on Friday.
In the report, the team noted progress in a number of areas since its last review in 2018, including the removal of spent fuel from a storage pool at one of the damaged reactors, as well as a decision to start discharging massive amounts of treated but still radioactive water stored at the plant into the ocean in 2023………. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/un-team-unclear-if-fukushima-cleanup-can-finish-by-2051/?ref=recent
We’re Number One in Weapons Sales, by Polly Mann — Rise Up Times
The main recipient region in 2016–20 was Asia and Oceania (accounting for 42 percent of global arms imports), followed by the Middle East (33 percent), Europe (12 percent), Africa (7.3 percent), and the Americas (5.4 percent).
We’re Number One in Weapons Sales, by Polly Mann — Rise Up Times
NSW stuns with 34GW of wind, solar proposals for New England renewable zone — RenewEconomy
NSW gets 34GW of project proposals for its New England renewable energy zone, one of five designed to build the capacity to replace coal. The post NSW stuns with 34GW of wind, solar proposals for New England renewable zone appeared first on RenewEconomy.
NSW stuns with 34GW of wind, solar proposals for New England renewable zone — RenewEconomy
Nationals Senator Matt Canavan is leading the charge in his party’s anti-science war, with the CSIRO a main target.
Nationals v CSIRO: why a party of government attacks its own scientific agency
Kishor Napier-Raman
Nationals Senator Matt Canavan is leading the charge in his party’s anti-science war, with the CSIRO a main target.
Development of ‘zombie’ gasfield areas would create waste, water issues.
Development of ‘zombie’ gasfield areas would create waste, water issues: opponents
Large swaths of some of the state’s best farmland could be opened up for coal seam gas development, resulting in the extraction of many gigalitres of groundwater
US fails to provide evidence for COVID-19 “lab leak” claims
The reason why the US intelligence agencies failed to find anything is simple: There is no evidence, secret or otherwise, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) has anything to do with the origins of COVID-19.
More than half a year since the Trump State Department released a fact sheet claiming that researchers at the WIV showed symptoms, prior to the outbreak of the pandemic, “consistent with… common seasonal illnesses,” there has not been a single piece of evidence—whether made public or even hinted at–that substantiates the lab leak “theory.”
In March of this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of COVID-19 said in its report that it had seriously considered the lab leak hypothesis but declared it “extremely unlikely” based on the absence of evidence. The report expressed willingness to follow up on “new evidence supplied around possible laboratory leaks,” but since then, none has been provided.
US fails to provide evidence for COVID-19 “lab leak” claims, WSWS, Andre Damon @Andre__Damon, 25 August 2021 On May 25, US President Joe Biden publicly embraced the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 may have been released from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, ordering the US intelligence agencies to produce a report within 90 days into the potentially man-made origins of the disease.
Three months later, the US intelligence agencies have failed to produce a shred of evidence to substantiate claims by the Trump administration, Biden administration and every major US media outlet that a lab leak is a “plausible” scenario.This was despite what was, according to media reports, a “giant” US effort. On August 5, CNN reported that the US was examining “a giant catalog of information [that] contains genetic blueprints drawn from virus samples studied at the lab in Wuhan, China.”
To process the massive amount of data in its possession, US intelligence agencies were “relying on supercomputers at the Department of Energy’s National Labs, a collection of 17 elite government research institutions.”In its reporting, CNN strongly indicated that the United States had carried out a cyberattack on medical and scientific institutions, writing “the machines involved in creating and processing this kind of genetic data from viruses are typically connected to external cloud-based servers—leaving open the possibility they were hacked.”
And after all this, what are the findings? The report was, in the massaged words of the New York Times write-up, defined by an “absence of conclusions.” It did not, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, “yield a definitive conclusion.” Both newspapers claim to be passing on the statements of “senior officials.”
The Times and the Journal claim that the intelligence agencies could not come to a conclusion due to “China’s refusal to continue to cooperate with international investigations” and China’s refusal to “give access to certain data sets.”
However, neither report mentioned CNN’s reporting about US access to a “giant” catalog of secret data, and why, if the US had access to the data being “hidden” by China, nothing was found.
The reason why the US intelligence agencies failed to find anything is simple: There is no evidence, secret or otherwise, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) has anything to do with the origins of COVID-19.
More than half a year since the Trump State Department released a fact sheet claiming that researchers at the WIV showed symptoms, prior to the outbreak of the pandemic, “consistent with… common seasonal illnesses,” there has not been a single piece of evidence—whether made public or even hinted at–that substantiates the lab leak “theory.”
In March of this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of COVID-19 said in its report that it had seriously considered the lab leak hypothesis but declared it “extremely unlikely” based on the absence of evidence. The report expressed willingness to follow up on “new evidence supplied around possible laboratory leaks,” but since then, none has been provided.
The members of the team “found no evidence for leads to follow up,” and that remains so to this day, they wrote in an article published in Nature on Wednesday, timed to correspond with the submission of the intelligence agencies’ report………… https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/08/26/pers-a26.html
1 This month.
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 