The astronomer royal and risk specialist on cyber-attacks, pandemics, Brexit and life on Mars, Martin Rees is a cosmologist and astrophysicist who has been the astronomer royal since 1995. He is also a co-founder of the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, Cambridge. His most recent book, On the Future: Prospects for Humanity, is published by Princeton.
Martin Rees……. science is not just a venture for academics – most of our life depends on how it’s applied.
…….. One consequence of modern technology is that the world is more interconnected. It’s possible for small groups or even individuals to produce an effect that cascades very widely, even globally.
Ian Tucker..…
The climate crisis is another area where international agreements have had limited impact. There is a strong grassroots movement led by Greta Thunberg and others, yet we have populist presidents in the US and Brazil who are climate-change deniers and reneging on agreements…
Martin Rees Politicians don’t prioritise things when the benefits are diffuse and in the far future. They will only take action if the voters are behind them. That’s why it’s very important to sustain these campaigns.
We want to make sure that these issues of climate stay on the agenda. For instance, the 2015 papal encyclical on climate change. The pope has a billion followers from Latin America, Africa, East Asia and this helped towards consensus at the Paris conference……
The need for sending people into space has evaporated. If you were building the Hubble telescope now, you wouldn’t send people to refurbish it, you would send robots. I hope human space flight will continue, but as a high-risk adventure bankrolled by private companies. If I were American, I wouldn’t support taxpayers’ money going on Nasa’s manned programme. …..
it is a delusion to think we can solve Earth’s problems by relocating to Mars. I completely disagree with Musk and with my late colleague Stephen Hawking on that, because dealing with climate change on Earth is a doddle compared with terraforming Mars. ….https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/18/martin-rees-astronomer-royal-interview-brexit
August 20, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
General News |
Leave a comment
If Trump ends another nuclear treaty, it will be the height of folly, by Michèle Flournoy and Kingston Reif, August 19, 2019 Michèle Flournoy is co-founder and managing partner of WestExec Advisors. She served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from February 2009 to February 2012. Kingston Reif is the director for Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy at the Arms Control Association.
(CNN)During his first two and a half years in office, President Donald Trump and his administration have laid waste to numerous international agreements originally designed to strengthen US security, bolster US alliances, and constrain US adversaries. The toll has been particularly high with respect to deals concerning nuclear arms control and nonproliferation.
Over the past 14 months, the administration has withdrawn from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and abandoned the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Both of these valuable agreements have been discarded without a viable plan to replace them.
Now the administration is signaling that it might jettison yet another nuclear pact, the2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia. Doing so would be the height of folly and would deal a significant blow to US national security. With the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty having just taken effect on Aug. 2, New START will be the only remaining agreement constraining the size of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals. Were New START to disappear, for the first time in nearly half a century there would be no legally binding limits on American or Russian nuclear stockpiles. The risk of unconstrained US-Russian nuclear competition, and of even more tense bilateral relations, would grow.
New START is one of the few remaining bright spots in the US-Russian relationship. The treaty requires each side to reduce long-range nuclear forces to no more than 1,550 deployed warheads, 700 deployed long-range missiles and bombers, and 800 deployed and non-deployed missile launchers and bombers by Feb. 5, 2018—a deadline that both countries
met.
New START also includes a comprehensive monitoring and verification regime to ensure compliance. But the agreement is set to expire on Feb. 5, 2021. Under its terms, it can be extended by up to five years if both presidents agree.
In an appearance before an activist group this summer, however, US National Security Advisor John Bolton, who before joining the administration calledNew START an “execrable deal,” said that while no decision has been made, he thinks an extension is “unlikely.”
The decision to extend New START should be a no-brainer from both a security and budget perspective.
The treaty caps the size of Russia’s deployed nuclear arsenal and provides the US with information about Russia’s forces that cannot be gained in any other way. This reduces the Russian threat to the US and greatly aids American military and intelligence planning…….
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/19/opinions/flournoy-reif-if-trump-ends-another-nuclear-treaty-it-will-be-the-height-of-folly/index.html
August 20, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
General News |
Leave a comment
The repercussions of the Russian explosion at a missile test centre continue. However, the radiation release was brief, and did not extend beyond the region, and not to neighbouring countries. There was confusion and secrecy following the explosion and Russian doctors were kept in the dark about patients being nuclear accident victims.
Attention has moved to questioning the missile project, – a mystery new nuclear weapon, dubbed Russia’s ‘flying Chernobyl’. What is clear, is that, in the month when we commemorate the nuclear tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, – the world, led by Donald Trump, is ripping up arms control measures, and ramping up nuclear weapons development.
I haven’t been able to keep up with the news on climate change – extreme weather events in various countries, the UN report including humanitarian effects, the costs, injustices, and inability to meet the goal of confining temperature rise to 1.5 C. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHdcpxmJ6vg In a powerful symbol, Iceland holds a funeral for the first glacier lost to climate change.
A bit of good news: a win for Aboriginal people in the abandonment of uranium mining in Australia’s Northern Territory. Mirrarr people to lead the Kakadu region’s transition.
AUSTRALIA
Australians need to rally in support of Julian Assange.
Time that Australia stopped blindly following USA into wars.
$40 billion a year needed for infrastructure to catch up with our population growth.
NUCLEAR. False statements on nuclear power by Federal Liberal National Party MP Keith Pitt. Victoria parliament decides to hold its own nuclear power inquiry. DELAY is the most salient reason why Small Modular Nuclear Reactors can’t work in Australia.
Nuclear waste: 21 August Senator Matt Canavan to hold closed meeting , then 2 open ones, in region designated for nuclear waste dumping. Kimba committee even discussed transitioning out of the site selection process. Why is the Australian government planning a nuclear waste dump in an earthquake zone? Nuclear waste dump: Barngarla group says indigenous ballots won’t fix its worries over vote discrimination,
CLIMATE. Pacific islander nations fed up with Australia’s inaction on climate change. Australia tells Pacific Islands to “reflect” on climate action, dial down “crisis” talk. Australia demands Paris targets be removed from Pacific Islands communique.
South Australian students plan more climate action -“No jobs on a dead planet”. Reserve Bank issues another warning to companies to take climate risks seriously. Bankrupted traditional owner vows to keep opposing Adani.
Investigative journalism: Australian investigative journalist Mark Davis explodes the myths around Julian Assange. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZkyLoaMvRg
RENEWABLE ENERGY. Solar investors give Australia wide berth, thanks to Morrison’s lump of coal.
INTERNATIONAL.
Climate change killing nuclear power? nuclear reactors can’t cope with water needs, as temperatures rise.
Cyber wars – as dangerous and deadly as nuclear wars ? Warning of 10 year totally dark Earth. – after a nuclear war between the US and Russia.
The Anthropocene is not an epoch. It’s a passing blink in geological time.
August 19, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Christina reviews |
Leave a comment
7 reasons why Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are a bad idea for Australia, more https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/seven-reasons-why-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-are-a-bad-idea-for-australia,13010
Small Nuclear Reactors are in the news internationally, and, rather more quietly, also in Australia.
International news reports that, in a failed missile test in Russia, a small nuclear reactor blew up, killing five nuclear scientists, and releasing a radiation spike.
In Australian news, with considerably less media coverage, Parliament announced an Inquiry into nuclear energy for Australia, with an emphasis on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Submissions are due by September 16.
A bit of background. The U.S. government and the U.S. nuclear industry are very keen to develop and export small modular nuclear reactors for two main reasons, both explained in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018 Firstly, with the decline of large nuclear reactors, there is a need to maintain the technology and the expertise, trained staff, necessary to support the nuclear weapons industry. Secondly, the only hope for commercial viability of small nuclear reactors is in exporting them – the domestic market is too small. So – Australia is seen as a desirable market.
The USA motivation for exporting these so far non-existent prefabricated reactors is clear. The motivation of their Australian promoters is not so clear.
These are the main reasons why it would be a bad idea for Australia to import small modular nuclear reactors.
-
COST.Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University’s Department of Engineering and Public Policy concluded that the SMR industry would not be viable unless the industry received “several hundred billion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies” over the next several decades. For a company to invest in a factory to manufacture reactors, they’d need to be sure of a real market for them – Australia would have to commit to a strong investment up front.
The diseconomics of scale make SMRs more expensive than large reactors. A 250 MW SMR will generate 25 percent as much power as a 1,000 MW reactor, but it will require more than 25 percent of the material inputs and staffing, and a number of other costs including waste management and decommissioning will be proportionally higher.
A study by WSP / Parsons Brinckerhoff, commissioned by the 2015/16 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, estimated costs of A$180‒184/MWh (US$127‒130) for large pressurised water reactors and boiling water reactors, compared to A$198‒225 (US$140‒159) for SMRs.
To have any hope of being economically viable, SMRs would have to be mass produced and deployed, and here is a “Catch-22″ problem The economics of mass production of SMRs cannot be proven until hundreds of units are in operation. But that can’t happen unless there are hundreds of orders, and there will be few takers unless the price can be brought down. Huge government subsidy is therefore required
-
Safety problems. Small nuclear reactors still have the same kinds of safety needsas large ones have. The heat generated by the reactor core must be removed both under normal and accident conditions, to keep the fuel from overheating, becoming damaged, and releasing radioactivity. The passive natural circulation coolingcould be effective under many conditions, but not under all accident conditions. For instance, for the NuScale design a large earthquake could send concrete debris into the pool, obstructing circulation of water or air. Where there are a number of units, accidents affecting more than one small unit may cause complications that could overwhelm the capacity to cope with multiple failures.
Because SMRs have weaker containment systems than current reactors, there would be greater damage if a hydrogen explosion occurred. A secondary containment structure would prevent large-scale releases of radioactivity in case of a severe accident. But that would make individual SMR units unaffordable. The result? Companies like NuScale now move to projects called “Medium” nuclear reactors – with 12 units under a single containment structure. Not really small anymore.
Underground siting is touted as a safety solution, to avoid aircraft attacks and earthquakes. But that increases the risks from flooding. In the event of an accident emergency crews could have greater difficulty accessing underground reactors.
Security
Proponents of SMRs argue that they can be deployed safely both as a fleet of units close to cities, or as individual units in remote locations. In all cases, they’d have to operate under a global regulatory framework, which is going to mean expensive security arrangements and a level of security staffing. ‘Economies of scale’ don’t necessarily work, when it comes to staffing small reactors. SMRs will, anyway, need a larger number of workers to generate a kilowatt of electricity than large reactors need. In the case of security staffing, this becomes important both in a densely populated area, and in an isolated one.
-
Weapons Proliferation.
The latest news on the Russian explosion is a dramatic illustration of the connection between SMRs and weapons development.
But not such a surprise. SMRs have always had this connection, beginning in the nuclear weapons industry, in powering U.S. nuclear submarines. They were used in UK to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Today, the U.S. Department of Energy plans to use SMRs as part of “dual use” facilities, civilian and military. SMRs contain radioactive materials, produce radioactive wastes – could be taken, used part of the production of a “dirty bomb” The Pentagon’s Project Dilithium’s small reactors may run on Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) , nuclear weapons fuel – increasing these risks.
It is now openly recognised that the nuclear weapons industry needs the technology development and the skilled staff that are provided by the “peaceful” nuclear industry. The connection is real, but it’s blurred. The nuclear industry needs the “respectability” that is conferred by new nuclear, with its claims of “safe, clean, climate-solving” energy.
- Wastes.
SMRs are designed to produce less radioactive trash than current reactors. But they still produce long-lasting nuclear wastes, and in fact, for SMRs this is an even more complex problem. Australia already has the problem of spent nuclear fuel waste, accumulating in one place – from the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. With SMRs adopted, the waste would be located in many sites, with each location having the problem of transport to a disposal facility. Final decommissioning of all these reactors would compound this problem. In the case of underground reactors, there’d be further difficulties with waste retrieval, and site rehabilitation.
6. Location.
I have touched on this, in the paragraphs on safety, security, and waste problems. The nuclear enthusiasts are excited about the prospects for small reactors in remote places. After all, aren’t some isolated communities already having success with small, distributed solar and wind energy? It all sounds great. But it isn’t.
With Australia’s great distances, it would be difficult to monitor and ensure the security of such a potentially dangerous system, of many small reactors scattered about on this continent. Nuclear is an industry that is already struggling to attract qualified staff, with a large percentage of skilled workers nearing retirement. The logistics of operating these reactors, meeting regulatory and inspection requirements, maintaining security staff would make the whole thing not just prohibitively expensive, but completely impractical.
- Delay.
For Australia, this has to be the most salient point of all. Economist John Quiggin has pointed out that Australia’s nuclear fans are enthusing about small modular nuclear reactors, but with no clarity on which, of the many types now designed, would be right for Australia. NuScale’s model, funded by the U.S. government, is the only one at present with commercial prospects, so Quiggin has examined its history of delays. But Quiggin found that NuScale is not actually going to build the factory: it is going to assemble the reactor parts, these having been made by another firm, – and which firm is not clear. Quiggin concludes:
Australia’s proposed nuclear strategy rests on a non-existent plant to be manufactured by a company that apparently knows nothing about it.
As there’s no market for small nuclear reactors, companies have not invested much money to commercialise them. Westinghouse Electric Company tried for years to get government funding for its SMR plan, then gave up, and switched to other projects. Danny Roderick, then president and CEO of Westinghouse, announced:
The problem I have with SMRs is not the technology, it’s not the deployment ‒ it’s that there’s no customers. … The worst thing to do is get ahead of the market.
Russia’s programme has been delayed by more than a decade and the estimated costs have ballooned.
South Korea decided on SMRs, but then pulled out, presumably for economic reasons.
China is building one demonstration SMR, but has dropped plans to build 18 more, due to diseconomics of the scheme.
There’s a lot of chatter in the international media, about all the countries that are interested, or even have signed memoranda of understanding about buying SMRs, but still with no plans for actual purchase or construction.
Is Australia going to be the guinea pig for NuScale’s Small and Medium Reactor scheme? If so,when? The hurdles to overcome would be mind-boggling. The start would have to be the repeal of Australia’s laws – the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 Section 140A and Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998. Then comes the overcoming of States’ laws, much political argy-bargy, working out regulatory frameworks, import and transport of nuclear materials, – finding locations for siting reactors, – Aboriginal issues-community consent, waste locations. And what would it all cost?
And, in the meantime, energy efficiency developments, renewable energy progress, storage systems – will keep happening, getting cheaper, and making nuclear power obsolete.
August 17, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Beautiful Flinders, The Advertiser, MICHELE MADIGAN, 15 Aug 19
RE Susan Andersson’s letter “No nuclear move” (The Advertiser, yesterday): As I travelled south along the highway from Coober Pedy this week, the glorious Flinders Ranges to the east were an inspiring sight.
One can only wonder at a Federal Government, which proposes to build a low-level nuclear dump (toxic for 300 years) and, even more concerning, as the letter stated, to simply store intermediate nuclear waste (toxic for 10,000 years) at such an iconic Australian site.
Neither does it make sense to build and store such literally halfway across the country in the international grain farming area of the Kimba region.
Yes, surely, both for residents and we travellers, it is safer (and better for the SA economy) to store the intermediate-level waste where it is – under the eyes of the nuclear experts.
August 17, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 