Antinuclear

United Nations to study impact of nuclear war for first time since 1989 amid ‘elevated risk’

ABC By Lachlan Bennett, 7 Nov 24

In short:

The United Nations will set up an expert panel to investigate how nuclear war would impact all facets of society.

It’s the first study of its kind since 1989 and has been prompted by concerns about geopolitical tensions.

What’s next?

The panel will deliver its final report in 2027 and make recommendations for future research.

You don’t need to watch too many apocalyptic blockbusters to realise that nuclear war would be devastating.

But when it comes to understanding the impact of a modern nuclear exchange, our data is nearly as old as The Terminator.

The last comprehensive United Nations study into nuclear war was published in 1989, back before the Soviet Union collapsed and before the first internet browser was released.

In the decades since, new nuclear powers have emerged and weapons technology has advanced.

The lack of holistic research into the consequences of nuclear conflict has the scientific community worried.

An atomic fact-finding mission

In light of these concerns, the UN First Committee last week voted to establish a panel of 21 international experts to assess how nuclear war would impact all facets of life, from public health and population to economics and agriculture.

The panel will harness the expertise of UN agencies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, while also soliciting data from governments and organisations like the Red Cross.

It will explore the role of new technology, such as artificial intelligence, and new risks, such as cyber-attacks.

And after consulting with “the widest range of scientists and experts”, a final report will be delivered in 2027.

Australia was one of 144 voters to support the move, while 30 abstained and three nuclear-armed nations opposed: the UK, France and Russia.

New Zealand and Ireland introduced the resolution.

“At a time of elevated risk of nuclear conflict, there is a clear need to publicly establish an accurate and up-to-date understanding of the impacts of a nuclear war,” they said.

Is nuclear war more likely today?

Nuclear war may seem a fading relic of the Cold War era, with global stockpiles declining from around 70,000 weapons in the 1980s to just over 12,000 today.

But many disarmament treaties are no longer in force, and new nuclear powers are expanding their arsenals.

Historic rivals India and Pakistan had only just established their nuclear programs when the last UN report was released.

They now have more 300 weapons between them.

……………………………………………………..Nuclear powers ‘don’t want the world to know’ the real risks

Nuclear disarmament advocates have welcomed Australia’s support for the UN study, especially given the opposition of its ally, the UK.

The UK Foreign Office told The Guardian the world did not need an independent scientific panel to know that “nuclear war would have devastating consequences”.

But Dr Hanson said the nuclear powers “don’t want the world to know just how devastating a nuclear war will be”.

“Or indeed the fact that we’ve had numerous close calls,” she said.

One of the most famous close calls occurred in 1983, when a Soviet early-warning system falsely reported missiles flying towards Russia from the US.

Despite Soviet protocol, the officer on duty did not report the false alarm to his superiors, preventing a potential retaliation.

According to the memoirs of former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, there was a more recent close call in 2019 when India launched strikes against militants in Pakistan following an attack in Kashmir.

Dr Hanson said the world had been “extremely lucky” to avoid a nuclear conflict.

“Our luck is not going to hold out forever,” she said.

Why do we need another study?

Various governments and institutions have studied aspects of nuclear weapons in recent decades.

But a lot of research has focused on areas of “military relevance”, according to International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons founding member Tilman Ruff.

“We really understand very little about the psychological, climatic, economic, social, political and infrastructure implications of nuclear weapons in the modern era,” he said.

Dr Ruff said the UN panel would provide authoritative and transparent research, without the “bias or needs of any particular country”.

“It gives it much more credibility and currency. Nations can’t say, ‘Oh, this doesn’t apply to us’,” he said…………………………………more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-07/un-votes-for-nuclear-weapons-scientific-panel/104564126

November 7, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australian nuclear news 4-11 November.

Headlines as they come in:

• Airstrip One: How Albanese has integrated Australia into Trump’s military machine
• Australia US Alliance: Is It Time to Rethink Our Loyalty?
• Nuclear waste management could add billions to electricity supply costs
• ‘Loophole’ in Victoria’s uranium ban allows mine to ship element to US
• 10 reasons why Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action.
• What from Trump? | The West Report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4GK0sY-cgc
• Matt Kean says Australia must take ‘strong and decisive action’ on climate crisis despite Trump re-election
• Reconsider AUKUS, say former Labor foreign ministers
• Nuclear waste could add $billions to energy supply costs .  
• ‘No bigger rent-seeking parasite’ than nuclear industry, Matt Kean tells former Coalition colleagues in heated debate.  
•  Nuclear a ‘rent-seeking parasite’ that will push up power prices: Kean . 

—

November 7, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why Nimbys are wrong about solar farms- even in the UK!

Opponents of solar farms often say that solar panels should be put on roofs and that fields should be left for agriculture so i asked the experts on whether they agreed

By Tom Bawden, Science & Environment , November 3, 2024 ,
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/why-nimbys-are-wrong-about-solar-farms-3355702

Tory leadership loser Robert Jenrick said that solar panels are “for roofs not fields” when asked byi last month if he supported a proposed giant solar farm in his Nottinghamshire constituency.

He is by no means alone in that view, which is a common argument given by opponents of solar farms.

Those who protest against solar farm developments argue fields would be better used for growing food, while solar panels could and should be concentrated on roofs, of which there are quite literally millions in the UK.

“I’ve said that we must ban solar farms from prime agricultural land and I mean it. These facilities are despoiling our beautiful countryside and jeopardising our food security. We must end it,” Mr Jenrick added.

But since Labour came to power Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has approved four of the five biggest solar farms to be given planning permission in the UK.

Mr Miliband has vowed to take on “the blockers, the delayers, the obstructionists” who oppose large solar and onshore wind development to help the UK meet its ambitious targets to make the country’s energy supply virtually carbon neutral in just six years.

As the Government steps up its campaign to drive through new solar and wind projects, it is likely we will be seeing more projects of a similar scale too that opposed by Mr Jenrick in the coming years.

i asked experts whether it was feasible for the UK to do without new solar farms and instead confine new solar panel installations to the rooftops of households, offices and other business properties, and what effect this could have on food security.

The sale of the solar challenge

Experts were clear that there needs to be a huge and rapid increase in renewable energy generation if the UK is to have any chance of meeting its highly ambitious climate targets.

And, as the cheapest source of renewable energy – now costing less than onshore and offshore wind, according to government figures – solar will inevitably play a key role in the transformation of the UK’s energy supply.

The Conservative’s British Energy Strategy in April 2022 outlines the need for 70 gigawatts (GW) of solar power to be installed by 2035 – enough to power 20 million homes, according to National Grid.

As of June 2024, the UK only had about 17GW installed capacity (powering around 4.5million homes), meaning the country needs to quadruple its solar power generation in the next 11 years.

Two thirds of the current solar power is generated by solar farms with panels on the ground – known as “ground mount” – with the remaining third coming from the rooftops of businesses and over 1.5 million homes.

Meanwhile, government advisor the Climate Change Committee estimates that we will need 90GW of solar by 2050 (5.3 times current capacity) if we are to hit our legally binding target of becoming Net Zero.

Dr Simon Harrison, a member of the Government’s new advisory commission to help make the UK’s power generation virtually carbon neutral by 2030, told i the task is so great that it’s “going to require vastly more renewable energy generation” – meaning that “in practice both solar farms and roof top solar will be needed at scale to meet our needs”.

“There’s a significant role for both,” added Professor Rob Gross, who also sits on the commission.

What are the advantages of solar farms?

The first major advantage of solar farms is the sheer amount of energy they produce.

The 600 MW Cottam Solar farm that was granted planning permission in September would be the UK’s largest – supplying 180,000 homes, or 1,500 homes for every 5MW of energy generated.

By contrast, large solar rooftop installs, say over an airport or large of space, typically generate hundreds of kilowatts (kW) potentially up to a few megawatts (MW).

While the average solar rooftop installation size on someone’s home for their own use is typically 4kW.

So the Cottam Solar project would generate at least 200 times the electricity of the very largest commercial roof top installations and around 150,000 times as much as a typical household solar panel setup.

Tony Slade, technical director of Beaverbrook Energy, which designs, finances and builds low-carbon energy generators, told i: “Ground mounted solar farms also suffer from less ‘shading’ (blocking of direct sunlight through obstacles and obstructions) and ‘directional losses’ by being angled in the wrong direction.

“About 50 per cent of roofs face the wrong way and of those that face the right way about 25 per cent suffer from shading issues,” he said.

Are solar farms cheaper than roof panels?

Yes, in part because they benefit from economies of scale. In other words, the bigger the solar farm, the cheaper each unit of electricity will be, as more panels can benefit from the infrastructure.

Professor Gross, who is also director of the UK Energy Research Centre coalition of researchers, told i “the principal advantages are economic”.

“It is far cheaper to install each solar panel in a large array of thousands of panels than it is to install a handful of panels on a roof.

“Ground mounted is cheapest, followed by larger arrays on commercial units, followed by new build, followed by residential retrofit. All categories are getting cheaper but it is impossible to get away from the fundamentals – the cheapest solar will always be the simplest to install, in the largest arrays,” he said.

“And ground mounted developers building large schemes may also be able to negotiate the best deals for panels and equipment,” he added.

Mr Slade explains that greenfield ground mount solar panels on fields typically cost two thirds as much, per unit of energy, as large scale solar panel arrays on commercial buildings such as warehouses, shopping centres and factories – as well as new build domestic and commercial buildings, where the solar panels are fitted as part of the original construction.

Meanwhile, installing solar panels above car parks is typically twice as expensive as wind farms and retrofitting homes is about three times as expensive, he said.

What about food security?

Opponents of large solar farms often argue that the land would be better used for agriculture and that too many of them could impact food security.

But the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero firmly rebuts those suggestions, arguing the amount of agricultural land involved would make very little difference to the UK’s food production.

“Our plans to boost solar power do not risk the UK’s food security. The total area of agricultural land used for solar is very small and is often the lowest grade quality for food production.

“Even in the most ambitious scenarios, solar would still occupy less than 1 per cent of the UK’s agricultural land, while bringing huge benefits for the British public and our energy security,” the spokesperson added.

Meanwhile, in July, National Farmers’ Union boss Tom Bradshaw warned MPs against making “sensationalist” claims about food security.

“It’s a small amount of land which is being taken out of production,” he told the Politico Europe website.

The role of rooftop solar panels

“They can potentially play a very important role, accounting for perhaps 40 per cent of new installation of solar. But it’s important to be clear that rooftop and ground based are additive not competitive,” Professor Gross said.

Dr Harrison says “there are serious considerations to make on where solar is placed”, meaning that sometimes roof top solar power can be far more suitable than those in fields.

“In the simplest terms, there is more space in rural areas for solar panel installations and it is often easier to optimise their positioning for greater energy capture. But they are generally further from existing grid connections and with sometimes competing requirements for land use,” he said.

“On the other hand, rooftop solar, most commonly in urban settings, often avoids use of congested electricity networks, especially when combined with local batteries, and when used in homes tends to drive greater awareness and action by residents in other areas such as energy efficiency improvements, as well as reducing bills. In practice both will be needed at scale to meet our needs.”

The Government estimates there are 250,000 hectares of south-facing, industrial roof space across the country. That’s an area bigger than London and Manchester combined, with the potential for a vast amount of solar panels.

Even a very conservative estimate suggests that this commercial roof space could provide an area big enough to generate approximately 25GW of energy.

This amounts to nearly half the total amount recommended by the Climate Change Committee (CCC), according research by University College London for the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

Mr Ramandani agrees that fields and rooftops can play different, complementary, roles in UK energy generation.

“We need about 18GW more of rooftop solar to hit 70GW by 2035 to keep us on the right path to Net Zero. So it will play a massive role,” he said.

“Rooftop solar can power people’s homes and business onsite without needing to pull from the grid, and excess generation can be stored or exported back to the grid, which supports the flexibility and security of the grid. And they operate at a smaller scale with some export to the overall grid system.

“Solar farms, meanwhile, are not onsite generation – they operate at a much bigger scale and power the grid with greater quantities of energy, which is used by the whole system and not specific to a home or business (before they export the excess generation that they don’t use or store).”

Is there a big role for household solar panels?

UK households are already waking up to solar panels, receiving record sums last year for the amount of excess energy they generated that they sold back to the grid, Ofgem said last week.

Homeowners received more than £30m for the energy they didn’t need in the year to March 2024, four times the £7.2m they made the previous year.

Although this amounted to a relatively small amount of energy – enough to power 88,000 homes – experts say there is considerable scope to increase this and they expect this to happen in the coming years.

“There is definite major role for rooftop solar in the UKs future energy mix,” said Mr Slade. “As installations become cheaper and the market for excess generation becomes fairer to the home owner rooftop domestic solar will continue to grow,” he said.

Mr Ramandani says: “Onsite solar rooftop generation takes money off consumer’s bills as they purchase less from the grid, and excess generation can be exported to the grid for income. This in turn creates a stable grid system with less demand side pressure, as well as supplementary energy generation from homes and businesses.

For a typical house, installing a PV system could lower bills by the equivalent of nearly 330 every year over the 30-year lifespan of the system, according to a study by Cambridge University and the Think Three property development company for Solar Energy UK.

November 4, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New Paper: Nuclear Weapons and Our Climate

Today, we are launching a new briefing paper: ‘Nuclear Weapons and Our Climate’ written by ICAN co-founder, A/Prof Tilman Ruff AO.

In the lead up to the climate COP29, this timely paper sharply lays out how the “two paramount human-made existential threats we confront—nuclear weapons and climate change—exacerbate each other and need to be addressed together—with utmost urgency,” writes A/Prof Ruff. “One harms us and our biosphere every day, the other could deplete it irrevocably and end human civilisation and many species in less than a day.”

The paper’s key findings are:

• Smoke from burning cities ignited by a nuclear war involving 2% of the global arsenal would suddenly plummet temperatures worldwide to ice age levels, decimate agriculture, disrupt ocean food chains and starve to death over two billion people.
• Militaries are large and mostly unconstrained greenhouse gas emitters. Growing conflicts and nuclear threats undermine international cooperation needed to address the climate crisis. Rising military spending and nuclear arsenals have huge opportunity costs and make conflicts more dangerous. An increased risk of war leading to nuclear escalation is the greatest danger of the climate crisis.
• Nuclear power inseparably creates the capacity to build nuclear weapons. In most nuclear-armed states, the infrastructure, personnel, expertise, industrial capacity and government investments in nuclear power are also key to their nuclear weapons programs.
• Nuclear reactors, spent fuel storage ponds and reprocessing plants are effectively pre-positioned large radiological weapons, vulnerable to direct attack or disruption of power and water for essential cooling. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has seen, for the first time, multiple nuclear power plants attacked and weaponised in war, risking a radiological disaster.

November 4, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dangerous Hype: Big Tech’s Nuclear Lies

M.V. Ramana, November 1, 2024,  https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/11/01/big-techs-nuclear-lies/

In the last couple of months, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, in that order, made announcements about using nuclear power for their energy needs. Describing nuclear energy using questionable adjectives like “reliable,” “safe,” “clean,” and “affordable,” all of which are belied by the technology’s seventy-year history, these tech behemoths were clearly interested in hyping up their environmental credentials and nuclear power, which is being kept alive mostly using public subsidies.

Both these business conglomerations—the nuclear industry and its friends and these ultra-wealthy corporations and their friends—have their own interests in such hype. In the aftermath of catastrophic accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, and in the face of its inability to demonstrate a safe solution to the radioactive wastes produced in all reactors, the nuclear industry has been using its political and economic clout to mount public relations campaigns to persuade the public that nuclear energy is an environmentally friendly source of power.

Tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, too, have attempted to convince the public they genuinely cared for the environment and really wanted to do their bit to mitigate climate change. In 2020, for example, Amazon pledged to reach net zero by 2040. Google went one better when its CEO declared that “Google is aiming to run our business on carbon-free energy everywhere, at all times” by 2030. Not that they are on any actual trajectory to meeting these targets.

Why are they making such announcements?

Greenwashing environmental impacts

The reasons underlying these companies investing in such PR campaigns is not hard to discern. There is growing awareness of the tremendous environmental impacts of the insatiable appetite for data from these companies, as well as the threat they pose to already inadequate efforts to mitigate climate change.

Earlier this year, the Wall Street company Morgan Stanley estimated that data centers will “produce about 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions through the end of the decade”. Climate scientists have warned that unless global emissions decline sharply by 2030, we are unlikely to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, a widely shared target. Even without the additional carbon dioxide emitted into the air as a result of data centers and their energy demand, the gap between current emissions and what is required is yawning.

But it is not just the climate. As calculated by a group of academic researchers, the exorbitant amounts of water required in the United States “to operate data centers, both directly for liquid cooling and indirectly to produce electricity” contribute to water scarcity in many parts of the country. This is the case elsewhere, too, and communities in countries ranging from Ireland to Spain to Chile are fighting plans to site data centers.

Then, there are the indirect impacts on the climate. Greenpeace documented, for example, that “Microsoft, Google, and Amazon all have connections to some of the world’s dirtiest oil companies for the explicit purpose of getting more oil and gas out of the ground and onto the market faster and cheaper.” In other words, the business models adopted by these tech behemoths depend on fossil fuels being used for longer and in greater quantities.

In addition to the increasing awareness about the impacts of data centers, one more possible reason for cloud companies to become interested in nuclear power might be what happened to cryptocurrency companies. Earlier this decade, these companies, too, found themselves getting a lot of bad publicity due to their energy demands and resulting emissions. Even Elon Musk, not exactly known as an environmentalist, talked about the “great cost to the environment” from cryptocurrency.

The environmental impacts of cryptocurrency played some part in efforts to regulate these. In September 2022, the White House put out a fact sheet on the climate and energy implications of Crypto-assets, highlighting President Biden’s executive order that called on these companies to reduce harmful climate impacts and environmental pollution. China even went as far as to banning cryptocurrency, and its aspirations to reducing its carbon emissions was one factor in this decision.

Crypto bros, for their part, did what cloud companies are doing now: make announcements about using nuclear power. Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are now following that strategy to pretend to be good citizens. However, the nuclear industry has its reasons for welcoming these announcements and playing them up.

The state of nuclear power

Strange as it might seem to folks basing their perception of the health of the nuclear industry on mainstream media, that technology is actually in decline. The share of global electricity produced by nuclear reactors has decreased from 17.5% in 1996 to 9.15% in 2023,  largely due to the high costs of and delays in building and operating nuclear reactors.

A good illustration is the Vogtle nuclear power plant in the state of Georgia. When the utility company building the reactor sought permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2011, it projected a total cost of $14 billion, and “in-service dates of 2016 and 2017” for the two units. The plant became operational only this year, after the second unit came online in March 2024, at a total cost of at least $36.85 billion.

Given this record, it is not surprising that there are no orders for any more nuclear plants.

As it has been in the past, the nuclear industry’s answer to this predicament is to advance the argument that new nuclear reactor designs would address all these concerns. But that has, yet again, proved not to be the case. In November 2023, the flagship project of NuScale, the small modular reactor design promoted as the leading one of its kind, collapsed because of high costs.

Supporters of nuclear power are now using another time-tested tactic to promote the technology: projecting that energy demand will grow so much that no other source of power will be able to meet these needs. For example, UK energy secretary Ed Davey resorted to this gambit in 2013 when he said that the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant was essential to “keep the lights on” in the country.

Likewise, when South Carolina Electric & Gas Company made its case to the state’s Public Service Commission about the need to build two AP1000 reactors at its V.C. Summer site—this project was subsequently abandoned after over $9 billion was spent—it forecast in its “2006 Integrated Resource Plan” that the company’s energy sales would increase by 22 percent between 2006 and 2016, and by nearly 30 percent by 2019.

This is the argument that the growth in data centres, propped up in part by the hype about generative artificial intelligence, has allowed proponents of nuclear energy to put forward. It remains to be seen whether this hype about generative AI actually materializes into a long-term sustainable business: see, for example, Ed Zitron’s meticulously documented argument for why OpenAI and Microsoft are simply burning billions of dollars and why their business model might “simply not be viable”.

In the case of the V.C. Summer project, South Carolina Electric & Gas found that its energy sales actually declined by 3 percent compared to 2006 by the time 2016 rolled around. Of course, that did not matter, because shareholders had already received over $2.5 billion in dividends and company executives had received millions of dollars in compensation, according to Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, a trade publication.

One wonders which executives and shareholders are going to receive a bounty from this round of nuclear hype.

What about emissions?

Will the investments in nuclear power by companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon help reduce emissions anytime soon?

The project expected to have the shortest timeline is the restart of the Three Mile Island Unit 1 reactor, which Constellation Energy projects will be ready in 2028. But if the history of reactor commissioning is anything to go by, that deadline will come and go without any power flowing from it.

Restarting a nuclear plant that has been shutdown has never been done before. In the case of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California, which hasn’t been shut down but was slated for decommissioning in 2024-25 till Governor Gavin Newsom did a volte-face, the Chair of the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee explained why doing so was very difficult: “so many different programs and projects and so on have been put in place over the last half a dozen years predicated on that closure in 2024-25 and each one of those would have to be evaluated and some of them are okay, and some of them won’t be and some are going to be a real stretch and some are going to cost money and some of them aren’t going to be able to be done maybe”.

The cost of keeping Diablo Canyon open has been estimated by the plant’s owner at $8.3 billion and by independent environmental groups at nearly $12 billion. There are no reliable cost estimates for reopening Three Mile Island, but Constellation Energy, the plant’s owner, is already seeking a taxpayer-subsidized loan that would likely save the company $122 million in borrowing costs.

One must also remember that Microsoft already announced an agreement with Helion Energy, a company backed by billionaire Peter Thiele, to get nuclear fusion power by 2028. The chances of that happening are slim at best. In 2021, Helion announced that it had raised $500 million to build its fusion generation facility that would demonstrate “net electricity production” in three years, i.e., “in 2024”. That hasn’t happened so far. But going back further, one can see a similar and unfulfilled claim from 2014: then, the company’s chief executive had told the Wall Street Journal that the company hoped that its product would generate more energy than it would use “in the next three years” (i.e., in 2017). It is quite likely that Microsoft’s decision-makers knew of how unlikely it is that Helion will be able to supply nuclear fusion power by 2028. The publicity value is the most likely reason for announcing an agreement with Helion.

What about the small modular nuclear reactor designs—X-energy and Kairos—that Amazon and Google are betting on? Don’t hold your breath.

X-energy is an example of a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor design that dates back to the 1940s. There have been four reactors based on similar concepts that were operated commercially, two in Germany and two in the United States, respectively, and test reactors in the United Kingdom, Japan, and China. Each of these reactors proved problematic, suffering a variety of failures and unplanned shutdowns. The latest reactor with a similar design was built in China. Its performance leaves much to be desired: within about a year of being connected to the grid, its power output was reduced by 25 percent of the design power capacity, and even at this lowered capacity, it operated in 2023 with a load factor of just 8.5 percent.

Kairos, on the other hand, will be challenged by its choice of molten salts as coolant. These are chemically corrosive, and decades of search have identified no materials that can survive for long periods in such an environment without losing their integrity. The one empirical example of a reactor that used molten salts dates back to the 1960s, and this experience proved very problematic, both when the reactor operated and in the half-century thereafter, because managing the radioactive wastes produced before 1970 continued to be challenging.

Simply throwing money will not overcome these problems that have to do with fundamental physics and chemistry.

Just a dangerous distraction

Although Amazon, Google, and Microsoft claim to be investing in nuclear energy to meet the needs of AI, the evidence suggests that their real motive is to greenwash themselves.

Their investments are small and completely inadequate with relation to how much is needed to build a reactor. But their investments are also very small compared to the bloated revenues of these corporations. So, from the viewpoint of top executives, investing in nuclear power must seem a cheap way to reduce bad publicity about their environmental footprints. Unfortunately, “cheap” for them does not translate to cheap for the rest of us, not to mention the burden to future generations of human beings from worsening climate change and, possibly, increased production of radioactive waste that will stay hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years.

Because nuclear power has been portrayed as clean and a solution to climate change, announcements about it serve as a flashy distraction to focus public attention on. Meanwhile, these companies continue to expand their use of water and draw on coal and especially natural gas plants for their electricity. This is the magician’s strategy: misdirecting the audience’s attention while the real trick happens elsewhere. Their talk about investing in nuclear power also distracts from the conversations we should be having about whether these data centers and generative AI are socially desirable in the first place.

There are many reasons to oppose and organize against the wealth and power exercised by these massive corporations, such as their appropriation of user data to engage in what has been described as surveillance capitalism, their contracts with the Pentagon, and their support for Israel’s genocide and apartheid. Their investment into nuclear technology, and more importantly, hyping it up, offers one more reason. It is also a chance to establish coalitions between groups involved in very different fights.

M. V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia and the author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India.

November 3, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

5 November Protest weapons manufacturer conference in Canberra.

Defence minister Richard Marles will be in attendance – picket the conference starting 8am, Marles speaking at 10:30am, Hotel Realm, Barton.

November 3, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Small Nuclear Reactors Have A Big Problem

November 2, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Canadians are waking up to the nuclear scam. Why are the media and other nations pretending that nuclear is just dandy?

I do read quite a few criticisms of the nuclear industry, from various non-profit groups. But lately, there’s a whole heap of them from Canada. And the unnerving thing is that these pesky Canadians are giving “chapter and verse” – facts and figures on how bad things really are, for the nuclear industry.

Of course, the Canadian, and indeed, the global nuclear lobby too, are pretending not to notice this. (But they must be a tad worried, lest too many intelligent people in other countries catch on to this annoying attention to detail)

Susan O’Donnell writes about New Brunswick’s nuclear fantasies  – the history of successive governments pouring tax-payers’ money into “advanced” reactor designs that are known by reputable scientists to be commercially unviable. -The Higgs government passing legislation forcing NB Power to buy electricity, at any price, from SMRs if they are ever built and actually work.

The companies involved have been unable to entice private investors, and are unlikely to get federal funding. NB Power’s $5.4-billion debt is mainly due to the poor performance of its Point Lepreau nuclear reactor. New Brunswickers are facing a 19.4 per cent increase in electricity rates. “Keeping the Point Lepreau and SMR fantasies alive will require considerable effort from the new government. “

Another recent example – from the Seniors for Climate Action Now! (SCAN):

They point out :

• the scandal-ridden nuclear history. 
• the revolving door between government officials and nuclear industry well-paid jobs.  
• the government/industry nuclear pitch to NATO-  “Ontario is selling itself as the nuclear North Star to guide the direction of American power”. 
• the failure of theNuScale SMR project.  
• OPG’s lengthy submission on small nuclear reactors is full of the things that could go wrong.
•  the over $40billion cost of refurbishing old end-of-life reactors. 
• New nuclear reactors at over $60billion

They raise such awkward questions about “Ontario’s journey to becoming an energy superpower”

But then, I forgot that this comes from Seniors. And I’ve just remembered that the nuclear industry is all about the young cool and trendy.

There are so many views from Canadians exploding the nuclear propaganda. And they’re not all old fogeys.

November 2, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment