Yo,

So let's have a sneaky-peak at what the world's most evil SOB has been up to...


July 26, 2024

"More Nuclear Reactors ?... Deceptive Tunes from the Pied Piper of Vienna"...

by M. V. Ramana - Jixiang Wang



Rafael Grossi, the International Atomic Energy Agencys Director General, has been busy over the last few years. The media has often reported on his efforts to highlight the risk of a major nuclear accident at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. Grossi has also met with Russian President Vladimir Putin twice to discuss the situation at Zaporizhzhia, arguing that a severe nuclear accidentwould recognize no borders and we must do everything possible to prevent such an accident.

But Grossi has also simultaneously been increasing the risk of accidents, albeit inadvertently, by calling for building more nuclear reactors. This advocacy takes many forms. He has written op-eds in prominent outlets like Foreign Affairs. He has been trying to canvas countries to start nuclear power programs. For example, in March 2024. he went to Baghdad and committed to working with Iraq to help build a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes. And as a way to deal with the unaffordable costs of nuclear reactors, he has pushed the World Bank and Asian Development Bank to provide funding for building nuclear plants.

None of this make sense. When viewed as investment advice to banks, Grossis promotion of nuclear power does not meet the laugh threshold. According to Grossi, the banks lack of funding for nuclear energy is out of date, out of step with what is happening. But it is Grossis advocacy that is out of step with happening to nuclear energy in the real world.

When nuclear energy is evaluated through how much it contributes to the worlds electricity production, the technology has been declining continuously for over 25 years, from 17.5 percent in 1996 down to 9.2 percent in 2022. For reasons discussed later, this trend will likely continue. In other words, the importance of nuclear energy is diminishing. Investing more money into a technology that some scholars argue is destined for decline makes little sense.

When analyzing Grossis advice to these development banks, one should remember what these institutions are supposed to do. The World Banks mission is to end extreme poverty and boost prosperity on a livable planet. And the Asian Development Bank has a similar mission, with a regional focus on Asia and the Pacific. The World Banks mission, in particular, mentions the multiple, intertwined crises we are confronting and emphasizes both the need for affordable energy and how quickly these crises should be addressed, stating time is of the essence. Nuclear energy fails on both counts.

Expensive and Slow

Electricity from nuclear reactors is costly and does not provide affordable energy, especially when compared to other low-carbon, renewable sources of energy. During the same period mentioned earlier, the share of all electricity generated by modern renewables has risen from just over 1 percent of in 1996 to 15.9 percent in 2023. Today, it is utility-scale solar photovoltaic power that provides the least costly option for generating electricity plants in many countries. This is why, in 2020, the International Energy Agency dubbed solar the new king of the worlds electricity markets. Money spent on nuclear reactors by banks would only divert funds away from investing in renewables and associated technologies and infrastructures.

Nuclear reactors have also almost never been on time. An astonishing 89 percent of all reactors that were connected to the grid between 2020 and 2022 were delayed: just two reactors in China were on schedule. In the United States, the two AP1000 reactors that just started operating in the state of Georgia ended up costing nearly $35 billion. In 2011, when the utility company building the reactor sought permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it projected a total cost of $14 billion, and in-service dates of 2016 and 2017 for the two units. These cost escalations and delays are even more extreme than the historical pattern identified in an academic study that examined 180 nuclear power projects and found that 175 had exceeded their initial budgets, by an average of 117%, and took 64% longer than initially projected

That is not all. Around the world, 92 nuclear projects have been cancelled or suspended, usually after hundreds of millions, if not billions, have been spent. In the United States, the latest such cancellation was a project involving a small modular reactor from NuScale that the company advertised as smaller, safer, and cheaper. Cheaper, it certainly wasnt, with a final cost estimate that was around 250% more than the initial per megawatt cost for the Vogtle project in Georgia. The earlier cancellation, of the V. C. Summer project involving two AP1000 reactors in South Carolina, was canceled after over $9 billion was spentelectricity consumers in the state will be paying for decades for this bad investment.

Necessary Conditions for Nuclear Power

It is not as though development banks have not considered nuclear energy. Back in 1959, the World Bank did invest in a nuclear project in Italy, based on a set of conditions, most importantly the unavailability of other cost-competitive alternatives. That project was not a success. More important for the present discussion is that with the reduced cost and increasing availability of solar and wind power, nuclear power no longer meets these conditions to be cost-effective.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), too, undertook an analysis of various technologies and published an Energy Policy paper in 2009 that highlighted a number of barriers confronting nuclear power development, including public concerns related to nuclear proliferation, waste management, safety issues, high investment costs, long lead times, and commercial acceptability of new technologies. Thanks to these concerns, the paper declared that ADB will maintain its current policy of non-involvement in the financing of nuclear power generation. None of these barriers have disappeared.

The challenge of ensuring safety was reinforced just two years after the ADBs paper when multiple reactors at the Fukushima Daichi nuclear plant melted down spreading radioactive materials widely, and posing difficult technical, socio-political and economical challenges: including an estimated future bill of 35 to 80 trillion yen (around $322 to $736 billion). Fukushima served as a reminder that the nature of nuclear technology ensures the inevitability of accidents.

The Unlearned Lessons of Zaporizhzhia

A different route to a severe nuclear accident is on display at the Zaporizhzhia power plantand Grossi has been eloquent about how such an accident will have ripples and reverberations all over the world. But instead of considering Zaporizhzhia as a wake-up call to reflect on whether the world should continue to build more nuclear power plants, Grossi has taken recourse to advocating for five principles of nuclear safety and security. Unfortunately for him these rules are unlikely to be widely acceptedas evidenced by the many attacks on the Zaporizhzhia plant.

This is not for lack of precedence. Well before Russia occupied Zaporizhzhia, Israel bombed Iraqs Osirak reactor in 1981 and, then in 2007, bombed the Al-Kibar nuclear facility where Syria was building a reactor. Iran and the United States have also attacked Iraqs nuclear facilities. None of the attackers faced any consequences.

Grossis principles and calls for new regimes might also contradict other imperatives. In a recent paper published in The Nonproliferation Review, two scholars have examined the history of such attacks in detail and concluded that attacks on nuclear facilities endure as a feature of the global nonproliferation regime because the international communityor at least some of the most influential members of the communitydeem them a necessary option for the maintenance of that regime. In other words, Zaporizhzhia is unlikely to be the last nuclear plant at risk of being attacked.

None of this information is new but they dont appear to play any part in Grossis advocacy for nuclear energy. When advising the World Bank to invest in nuclear power, he doesnt explain that the tens of billions of dollars the Bank might invest in a nuclear reactor could, within a matter of minutes, be converted into a cleanup project that would cost hundreds of billions. Or explaining to Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni that the small modular reactors he recommended that Italy build could be blown up and the result might, as with Zaporizhzhia, cause enormous suffering.

Grossis silence about this risk should be troubling at the best of times. But it is particularly inexcusable when he is, in parallel, emphasizing the risks of suffer a major accident at the Zaporizhzhia power plant. When he went to Iraq recently, he actively downplayed the legitimate concerns in that country thanks to its nuclear reactors being bombed by Israel and the United States. Grossis prescription is to simply call for turning the page on this complex past. Can he genuinely and credibly assure Iraq that such an attack will not happen again?

The deeper problem is a conflict of interest. As the head of the International Atomic Energy, Rafael Grossi, like his predecessors, tasked with two separate objectives: to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world and to ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose. The case for promoting nuclear energy was never very strong and has completely collapsed in recent years. It is past time to simply abandon the first objective and focus on the second.

 

No nukes is good nukes !

-- Edited by Rastus on Saturday 27th of July 2024 09:04:44 PM

SELLC wrote:

---

1.Dude... it would almost seem we're on the virge of WWIII, do you honestly think anyone gives AF?

2.Then again, threats of war and people not giving AF might be the exact thing they are looking for!

3.I don't think we're getting away from it either! According to your article there is some 190 nuke plants already in existence! Maybe even more by now, who knows? Does not seem like it's slowing down -- this demand for energy.

4.Here is something else to think about... I think your alien friends like nuke power too -- it's the only explanation for how they could even travel to Earth! So now what, Rastus?

 

---

 

R1. C'mon Stellar...We ( the world ) have been at war unofficially since COrona VIrus Disease 2019...And the US-of-UK/I Corporation has always been at war..It's the law yo !

R2. That's not the corporate way Stellar !

R3. There was 465 nuke-plants in operation as of March 2011, with 200 new-builds from Chjna expected over 20-years...There's been plenty of closures & new-builds arise since that time.

R4. Oh Stellar, please tell me that you're not that clue-less...It's your birthday, so I better be nice...

 

Yo,

I wasn't going to update this week due to nothing new appearing in "Beyond Nuclear", & then I found this article in CounterPunch which is superb, & just what our host likes lol ! Amazing how the US-of-I/UK wastes its money, & elects idiots that support this bullshyte...


August 8, 2024

Inside the Nuclear Weapons Lobby Today

by Hekmat Aboukhater - William D. Hartung


The Pentagon is in the midst of a massive $2 trillion multiyear plan to build a new generation of nuclear-armed missiles, bombers, and submarines. A large chunk of that funding will go to major nuclear weapons contractors like Bechtel, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. And they will do everything in their power to keep that money flowing.

This January, a review of the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program under the Nunn-McCurdy Act a congressional provision designed to rein in cost overruns of Pentagon weapons programs found that the missile, the crown jewel of the nuclear overhaul plan involving 450 missile-holding silos spread across five states, is already 81% over its original budget. It is now estimated that it will cost a total of nearly $141 billion to develop and purchase, a figure only likely to rise in the future.

That Pentagon review had the option of canceling the Sentinel program because of such a staggering cost increase. Instead, it doubled down on the program, asserting that it would be an essential element of any future nuclear deterrent and must continue, even if the funding for other defense programs has to be cut to make way for it. In justifying the decision, Deputy Defense Secretary William LaPlante stated: We are fully aware of the costs, but we are also aware of the risks of not modernizing our nuclear forces and not addressing the very real threats we confront.

Cost is indeed one significant issue, but the biggest risk to the rest of us comes from continuing to build and deploy ICBMs, rather than delaying or shelving the Sentinel program. As former Secretary of Defense William Perry has noted, ICBMs are some of the most dangerous weapons in the world because they could trigger an accidental nuclear war. As he explained, a president warned (accurately or not) of an enemy nuclear attack would have only minutes to decide whether to launch such ICBMs and conceivably devastate the planet.

Possessing such potentially world-ending systems only increases the possibility of an unintended nuclear conflict prompted by a false alarm. And as Norman Solomon and the late Daniel Ellsberg once wrote, If reducing the dangers of nuclear war is a goal, the top priority should be to remove the triads ground-based leg not modernize it.

This is no small matter. It is believed that a large-scale nuclear exchange could result in more than five billion of us humans dying, once the possibility of a nuclear winter and the potential destruction of agriculture across much of the planet is taken into account, according to an analysis by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

In short, the need to reduce nuclear risks by eliminating such ICBMs could not be more urgent. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Doomsday Clock an estimate of how close the world may be at any moment to a nuclear conflict is now set at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest its been since that tracker was first created in 1947. And just this June, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a mutual defense agreement with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, a potential first step toward a drive by Moscow to help Pyongyang expand its nuclear arsenal further. And of the nine countries now possessing nuclear weapons, its hardly the only one other than the U.S. in an expansionist phase.

Considering the rising tide of nuclear escalation globally, is it really the right time for this country to invest a fortune of taxpayer dollars in a new generation of devastating use them or lose them weapons? The American public has long said no, according to a 2020 poll by the University of Marylands Program for Public Consultation, which showed that 61% of us actually support phasing out ICBM systems like the Sentinel.

The Pentagons misguided plan to keep such ICBMs in the U.S arsenal for decades to come is only reinforced by the political power of members of Congress and the companies that benefit financially from the current buildup.

Who Decides? The Role of the ICBM Lobby

A prime example of the power of the nuclear weapons lobby is the Senate ICBM Coalition. That group is composed of senators from four states Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming that either house major ICBM bases or host significant work on the Sentinel. Perhaps you wont be surprised to learn that the members of that coalition have received more than $3 million in donations from firms involved in the production of the Sentinel over the past four election cycles. Nor were they alone. ICBM contractors made contributions to 92 of the 100 senators and 413 of the 435 house members in 2024. Some received hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The nuclear lobby paid special attention to members of the armed services committees in the House and Senate. For example, Mike Turner, a House Republican from Ohio, has been a relentless advocate of modernizing the nuclear arsenal. In a June 2024 talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which itself has received well over a million dollars in funding from nuclear weapons producers, he called for systematically upgrading the nuclear arsenal for decades to come, while chiding any of his congressional colleagues not taking such an aggressive stance on the subject.

Although Turner vigorously touts the need for a costly nuclear buildup, he fails to mention that, with $305,000 in donations, hes been the fourth-highest recipient of funding from the ICBM lobby over the four elections between 2018 and 2024. Little wonder that he pushes for new nuclear weapons and staunchly opposes extending the New START arms reduction treaty.

In another example of contractor influence, veteran Texas representative Kay Granger secured the largest total of contributions from the ICBM lobby of any House member. With $675,000 in missile contractor contributions in hand, Granger went to bat for the lobby, lending a feminist veneer to nuclear modernization by giving a speech on her experience as a woman in politics at Northrop Grummans Womens conference. And were sure you wont be surprised that Granger has anything but a strong track record when it comes to keeping the Pentagon and arms makers accountable for waste, fraud, and abuse in weapons programs. Her X account is, in fact, littered with posts heaping praise on Lockheed Martin and its overpriced, underperforming F-35 combat aircraft.

Other recipients of ICBM contractor funding, like Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers, have lamented the might of the far-left disarmament community, and the undue influence of anti-nuclear zealots on our politics. Missing from the statements his office puts together and the speeches his staffers write for him, however, is any mention of the $471,000 in funding hes received so far from ICBM producers. You wont be surprised, were sure, to discover that Rogers has pledged to seek a provision in the forthcoming National Defense Authorization Act to support the Pentagons plan to continue the Sentinel program.

Lobbying Dollars and the Revolving Door

The flood of campaign contributions from ICBM contractors is reinforced by their staggering investments in lobbying. In any given year, the arms industry as a whole employs between 800 and 1,000 lobbyists, well more than one for every member of Congress. Most of those lobbyists hired by ICBM contractors come through the revolving door from careers in the Pentagon, Congress, or the Executive Branch. That means they come with the necessary tools for success in Washington: an understanding of the appropriations cycle and close relations with decision-makers on the Hill.

During the last four election cycles, ICBM contractors spent upwards of $226 million on 275 extremely well-paid lobbyists. For example, Bud Cramer, a former Democratic congressman from Alabama who once sat on the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, netted $640,000 in fees from Northrop Grumman over a span of six years. He was also a cofounder of the Blue Dog Democrats, an influential conservative faction within the Democratic Party. Perhaps you wont be surprised to learn that Cramers former chief of staff, Jefferies Murray, also lobbies for Northrop Grumman.

While some lobbyists work for one contractor, others have shared allegiances. For example, during his tenure as a lobbyist, former Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Trent Lott received more than $600,000 for his efforts for Raytheon, Textron Inc., and United Technologies (before United Technologies and Raytheon merged to form RX Technologies). Former Virginia Congressman Jim Moran similarly received $640,000 from Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.

Playing the Jobs Card

The argument of last resort for the Sentinel and similar questionable weapons programs is that they create well-paying jobs in key states and districts. Northrop Grumman has played the jobs card effectively with respect to the Sentinel, claiming it will create 10,000 jobs in its development phase alone, including about 2,250 in the state of Utah, where the hub for the program is located.

As a start, however, those 10,000 jobs will help a miniscule fraction of the 167-million-member American workforce. Moreover, Northrop Grumman claims facilities tied to the program will be set up in 32 states. If 2,250 of those jobs end up in Utah, that leaves 7,750 more jobs spread across 31 states an average of about 250 jobs per state, essentially a rounding error compared to total employment in most localities.

Nor has Northrop Grumman provided any documentation for the number of jobs the Sentinel program will allegedly create. Journalist Taylor Barnes of ReThink Media was rebuffed in her efforts to get a copy of the agreement between Northrop Grumman and the state of Utah that reportedly indicates how many Sentinel-related jobs the company needs to create to get the full subsidy offered to put its primary facility in Utah.

A statement by a Utah official justifying that lack of transparency suggested Northrop Grumman was operating in a competitive defense industry and that revealing details of the agreement might somehow harm the company. But any modest financial harm Northrop Grumman might suffer, were those details revealed, pales in comparison with the immense risks and costs of the Sentinel program itself.

There are two major flaws in the jobs argument with respect to the future production of nuclear weapons. First, military spending should be based on security considerations, not pork-barrel politics. Second, as Heidi Peltier of the Costs of War Project has effectively demonstrated, virtually any other expenditure of funds currently devoted to Pentagon programs would create between 9% and 250% more jobs than weapons spending does. If Congress were instead to put such funds into addressing climate change, dealing with future disease epidemics, poverty, or homelessness all serious threats to public safety the American economy would gain hundreds of thousands of jobs. Choosing to fund those ICBMs instead is, in fact, a job killer, not a job creator.

Unwarranted Influence in the Nuclear Age

Advocates for eliminating ICBMs from the American arsenal make a strong case. (If only they were better heard!) For example, former Representative John Tierney of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation offered this blunt indictment of ICBMs:

Not only are intercontinental ballistic missiles redundant, but they are prone to a high risk of accidental useThey do not make us any safer. Their only value is to the defense contractors who line their fat pockets with large cost overruns at the expense of our taxpayers. It has got to stop.

The late Daniel Ellsberg made a similar point in a February 2018 interview with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

You would not have these arsenals, in the U.S. or elsewhere, if it were not the case that it was highly profitable to the military-industrial complex, to the aerospace industry, to the electronics industry, and to the weapons design labs to keep modernizing these weapons, improving accuracy, improving launch time, all that. The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower talked about is a very powerful influence. Weve talked about unwarranted influence. Weve had that for more than half a century.

Given how the politics of Pentagon spending normally work, that nuclear weapons policy is being so heavily influenced by individuals and organizations profiting from an ongoing arms race should be anything but surprising. Still, in the case of such weaponry, the stakes are so high that critical decisions shouldnt be determined by parochial politics. The influence of such special interest groups and corporate weapons-makers over life-and-death issues should be considered both a moral outrage and perhaps the ultimate security risk.

Isnt it finally time for the executive branch and Congress to start assessing the need for ICBMs on their merits, rather than on contractor lobbying, weapons company funding, and the sort of strategic thinking that was already outmoded by the end of the 1950s? For that to happen, our representatives would need to hear from their constituents loud and clear.

Yo,

It's been so quiet in here, I thought that there was maybe a nuke-accident, & everyone split...Thankfully, this hasn't happened, with only the usual idiocy to report on...Here the direct cut & paste from my mailbox yo.




NUCLEAR MADNESS

Lets stop it


Nuclear madness is everywhere. Our government is determined to promote new reactors and the continued use of dangerous old ones, as long as we pay for them. Executives and politicians have even been convicted of crimes to ensure this happens. The media laps up the rhetoric and parrots the lie that nuclear power is carbon-free. Yet, spending those same dollars on renewables would get us more carbon reductions faster and without all the deadly risks of nuclear power.


Thats why we need your support now more than ever to block these dangerous proposals at every step including through legal action. If you agree that nuclear power is NOT the answer to the climate crisis, please donate to Beyond Nuclear today.




ZOMBIE NUKE?!

Coalition resists MI nuke license transfer


For years, Beyond Nuclear, Don't Waste Michigan, and Michigan Safe Energy Future have beat the drum of resistance, against the unprecedented restart of the closed, nearly 60-year old, problem-plagued, Palisades atomic reactor in Covert, MI. On August 27, the coalition's legal counsel, Wally Taylor of Iowa, and Terry Lodge of Ohio, met the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's arbitrarily and capriciously short 20-day deadline, petitioning to intervene and requesting a hearing in opposition to the transfer of the possession-only license from Holtec Decommissioning to a brand new holding company, Palisades Energy, LLC. The coalition also intends to meet NRC's October 7 deadline, regarding several License Amendment Requests, and an "Exemption," vital to Holtec's Palisades zombification scheme.





THE RISKS AT KURSK

Another Chornobyl?


Summarized from Scientists for Global Responsibility: Due to the Ukraine military incursion into the Kursk region of the Russian Federation, there is now a severe risk to the nuclear power plant there that, like the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine also at high risk because of the war has six reactors, making it one of the three biggest nuclear power stations in Russia. Unlike the fully closed Zaporizhzhia, two of the Kursk reactors are operating at full power and are of the same design - the RBMK - as the Chornobyl nuclear plant that melted down in 1986. They have no protective dome structure, making them very vulnerable to a military strike or aircraft impact that could lead to a Europe-wide nuclear disaster.





RADIOACTIVE RACISM

D.C. Circuit blesses Holtec's NM dump


On August 27, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against all opposition to Holtec's consolidated interim storage facility for high-level radioactive waste targeted at majority minority (Latinx and Indigenous) New Mexico. The 173,600 ton facility for irradiated nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive waste would be the world's largest. Beyond Nuclear and our allies have opposed Holtec's scheme since it was announced on Nuclear Fool's Day, April 1, 2017 -- and for decades before that. Holtec's license has been vacated by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. If the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the other side's appeals, our side wins -- for now.



*Typical Geiger Counter readings of 18 CPM here in deep southern Oz yo !

Yo,

A short post this week, since no-one likes to read, especially books on this subject matter. More nuclear bollox however to stay up-to-date with. (And I for one, am sure glad I don't live State-side, what a shyte country to call home).



RADIATION VICTIMS COME TO DC

Call on House to pass victim compensation


"Beginning September 22, more than 50 members of the Navajo Nation, Laguna Pueblo, Acoma Pueblo and Hopi tribe will drive roughly 30 hours by bus from New Mexico to Washington, D.C., to demand House Speaker Mike Johnson allow a vote on legislation reauthorizing the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). The bill would aid victims of U.S. nuclear tests, uranium mining and nuclear waste storage. The group, from New Mexico and Arizona, includes former uranium workers, veterans, and people who lived downwind of nuclear weapons tests who are suffering from radiation-related illnesses, such as thyroid cancer and lung disease... [t]he bill has sat on Speaker Johnsons desk since March, when it was passed by a bipartisan supermajority in the Senate.





NUKE ZEALOTRY

DOE targets closed atomic/fossil sites


As reported by Utility Dive, the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy commissioned a study by authors from Argonne and Oak Ridge National Labs. Entitled "Evaluation of Nuclear Power Plant and Coal Power Plant Sites for New Nuclear Capacity," it concluded up to 269,000 Megawatts-electric (MW-e) of new atomic power could be constructed/operated, at up to 145 coal sites in 36 states, and 41 nuclear sites in 31 states, including at some recently retired plants. The schemes include adding nuclear new build at spacious enough sites with still operating reactors, as well. In Michigan, for example, Holtec plans to restart a closed 805 MW-e reactor, and add two so-called "Small Modular Reactors," of 300 MW-e each.


No nukes is good nukes !

SELLC wrote:

---

1.Rastus, our power company here (DTE) recently got authorization from the regulatory commision to increase bills to cover an extra $350 million a few months back... they were back at the commission two days ago looking for $460 million more!

2.I might also add that a few local cities just successfully blocked New York from dumping contaminated dirt here from the Manhattan project !

3.So... I mean, why not! We already have two dumps in close proximity -- we're all fucked.

4.Last I heard someone wanted to dump some sh!t there on Australia too!

---

 

R1. Poon !

R2. Great news !

R3. The technology already exists to neutralize nuke-waste. But you have to enter the realm of free-energy to do so...And why do that when fear & control is successfully managed by having the shyte around. It's a perpetual scare tactic.

R4. You likely heard it from me lol ! This is what AUKUS & 5-Eyes (lol) was all about. Most Australians have no idea to this day what these even mean, yet alone exist. These decisions warranted a referendum, where the whole country is meant to vote on this decision making process, but I suggest it was made in the 1990's. At this time, the rail-way-line from Darwin was super-upgraded to Alice Springs, where the secret US-of-I(UK)  base of "Pine Gap" exists. The Northern Territory is a territory, & not a State, & so easily corrupted, making it easy for nuke-waste to be easily distributed secretly...

This is why "Steve Irwin" was buying-up & securing as much land as possible, so as to stop this happening I imagine, as well as fracking & all that other bollox.

 

Yo,

It seems that the recent hurricane through Florida has more than raised some concerns with nuke-plants in the area, & throughout the country...Read on !



HELENE FLOODS FL REACTOR

12-ft surge at Crystal River


Duke Energy reported to the state of Florida that its decommissioning Crystal River nuclear power plant on Floridas Gulf Coast was inundated by Hurricane Helenes 12-foot storm surge.



Dukes filing cites, The whole site was flooded, including buildings, sumps, and lift stations. Industrial Wastewater Pond #5 was observed overflowing to the ground due to the surge. Crystal River, south of Cedar Key and closed in 2013, is being decommissioned rather than operational. Had it been operational, even in hot shutdown, the hurricane force wind, flooding and power outage might have caused a nuclear accident with far reaching radioactive consequences on top of the natural disaster. Helene sends a warning ahead of an accelerating climate crisis to still vulnerable nuclear power plants.




NUKE RUST BUCKET!

Corrosion "far exceeds" expectations


A Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) summary of a conference call with Holtec, published October 2, reveals why NRC recently issued a rare Preliminary Notification of Occurrence at Palisades. NRC reports a recent inspection of tubes in Palisades' two steam generators (SG) revealed Stress Corrosion Cracking under Holtec far exceeded what occurred under previous owner, Entergy: 250 times more tubes were found to be damaged. Entergy operated Palisades from 2007-22; Holtec took over the reactor less than 2.5 years ago, under false pretenses to decommission it. Inspections uncovered at least 700 additional tubes that must be plugged, as many as had been plugged during the previous 20 years of operations. Palisades' unprecedented restart could be delayed years, despite massive bailouts.



No nukes is good nukes !

Current CPM here in Southern Oz a steady 18.25...

Get rid of climate change is so simple. Demolish HAARP and hang everyone.

Yo,

The nuclear industry is really turning into an unbelievable comedy act, with employees announcing the most amazing bullshyte...And the gov't keeps feeding it your tax dollars...At some point soon, the people will have to lose these mofo's yes ?"...

Here's the weekly update on this madness...Which like your gov't, is simply stringing the cash out needlessly for as long as it can, to a dying industry...




DOE: $900 MILLION to SMRs

More grease on the skids



Reuters reports the US Department of Energy (DOE) is dangling $900 million in federal government applications to jump start licensing and construction activity for new nuclear power plants largely on the misinformation that has accompanied a rollout of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) going back to the 1950s.


The nuclear industry and its tireless promoters claim that SMRs are more likely to achieve a stubbornly elusive nuclear renaissance where previous large-scale generations of reactors have proven to be futile to reliably finance and deploy. SMRs are supposed to be simpler designs, inherently safe, scalable power and less costly to roll off factory assembly lines. But no U.S. commercial SMR has been built yet, and remains more a mirage than modular technology.





NRC HIDING NUCLEAR LEAKS

Apologies are coverups


Nukewatch has reprised its public disclosure that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) deliberately played down a potential public hazard pathway by misreporting that Xcel Energys Monticello nuclear power station had a large accidental radioactive release on November 22, 2022 that in a series of leaks of at least 829,000 gallons of radioactive tritium (radioactive water) with readings of up to 5.2 million picocuries per liter had discharged into the Mississippi River northwest of Minneapolis (20,000 picocuries is the EPA protective threshold in drinking water). Moreover, Xcel Energy did not issue any cautionary alerts to the public of the accidental radioactive discharge for downstream populations recreating downstream or alert protective actions for downstream municipal drinking water treatment centers.






NUKE DUMPING IN GREAT LAKES

Coalition comments to MI on NPDES


Comments spearheaded by Dont Waste MI and NIRS, endorsed by 71 organizations, have raised numerous concerns with Michigans Energy, Great Lakes, and Environment state agency, regarding National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit renewal at the Palisades atomic reactor.


The comments were inspired by Indigneous-led CRAFT (Citizens Resistance at Fermi Two) NPDES comments last year, to similarly protect Lake Erie.


Entergy closed Palisades for good 2.5 years ago. The reactor had operated for 51 years. But Holtec, which had taken over at Palisades, supposedly to decommission it, changed its mind. It decided to restart Palisades instead, even though it is unprecedented, unneeded, insanely expensive for the public, and extremely risky for health, safety, security, and the environment.


Holtec will need a renewed NPDES permit in order to dump in Lake Michigan during renewed operations from 2025 to 2051.