Archive for the ‘general’ Category

NO, Virginia, Small Nuclear Reactors do NOT combat climate change

March 10, 2021
SMRs “are not the solution to climate change,” said the organization, citing a University of British Columbia study indicating that energy produced by SMRs could cost up to 10 times as much as power from renewable sources such as wind and solar.
SMRs “are a diversion from the development of energy systems that best mitigate climate change,”
What’s the Role for New Nuclear Power in the Fight Against Climate Change?
Some fear that small modular reactors could rob cash from more proven low-carbon technologies. Greentech Media, JASON DEIGN MARCH 08, 2021 
Small modular reactors (SMRs) — nuclear reactors using novel technologies to fit into much smaller and mass-producible packages than the behemoth nuclear power plants of today — are presented as a way of rapidly decarbonizing the grid in the face of an ever more pressing need to meet climate targets. But some opponents claim new nuclear power could have the opposite effect, slowing the fight against human-caused climate change just when things should be speeding up.In September last year, for example, the Sierra Club Canada Foundation harshly criticized Canada’s plans to foster an SMR industry.SMRs “are not the solution to climate change,” said the organization, citing a University of British Columbia study indicating that energy produced by SMRs could cost up to 10 times as much as power from renewable sources such as wind and solar.“Critics of SMRs say that developing experimental nuclear reactor technologies will take too long to make a difference on climate change and could drain billions of dollars from public coffers,” said the advocacy group.Similar challenges have been leveled against U.S. utilities such as Duke Energy and Southern Company that include SMRs in the longer-range suite of options to fully decarbonize their power grids by 2050. Critics question whether the SMRs under development today can be commercialized fast enough to drive down emissions over the next decade or two and whether government funding to drive faster deployment might better be spent on other technologies.

That’s not the only criticism facing new nuclear. In 2014, NuScale Power, which looks likely to become the first Western SMR developer to commercialize a reactor, published a paper on the use of its SMRs for oil recovery and refining applications.

The aim of the paper was to show that SMRs could be instrumental in “reducing the overall carbon footprint of these industrial complexes and preserving valuable fossil resources as feedstock for higher-value products,” according to the authors.

Nevertheless, it doesn’t look good for the nuclear industry’s climate-fighting credentials when one of its upcoming stars is apparently touting wares to the oil and gas sector.

In a written statement, Diane Hughes, NuScale Power’s vice president of marketing and communications, told GTM that the SMR developer “does not comment or discuss what companies we may be talking to regarding potential business opportunities.”……

Doubts over government finance for SMRs

Despite this, the question remains whether it makes sense for governments to put money into SMR research and development when other low-carbon generation technologies can be used to combat climate change right away.

Nuclear skeptics such as David Toke, who researches energy politics at the University of Aberdeen in the U.K., don’t think so. SMRs “are a diversion from the development of energy systems that best mitigate climate change,” he said in an interview.

“Small reactors already exist, and they occupy a very niche zone, which is military marine, mainly. That allows very high costs. But that’s the point: They cost an awful lot of money. Just because something reduces carbon emissions doesn’t mean to say the state ought toencourage it.”  ….https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/whats-the-role-for-new-nuclear-power-in-the-climate-change-fight

The new Big Global Hoax – Small Nuclear Reactors

December 5, 2020

For a while, it was confined to the “nuclear nations” – USA, Russia, China, and some historic failed attempts in India and South Africa. Now these still non existent fantasies are being marketed to countries all over the world

The “peaceful nuclear industry’ with very big reactors, and less big “research” reactors,  has always been an expensive front for the nuclear weapons industry.

But, things have changed.  The big reactors have got massively expensive, and the toxic radioactive trash that they produce has become a global and unsolvable problem.  Shock horror –  people don’t like them!  Non nuclear cyclotrons can produce medical radioisotopes – no need for the research reactors, either.

The global nuclear weapons industry is in a panic, because:

It must somehow keep up that ‘peaceful’ mask of “commercial nuclear” , and “medical nuclear”.  and

more shock horror – people don’t want nuclear weapons, and the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons will come into force on 22 January 2020 –   the nuclear weapons industry will become illegal, just like chemical warfare and land mines.

What to do to keep the nuclear weapons industry going?  Where to get money for it?  Where to get the essential nuclear personnel?  Where to get the money and training for these nuclear experts?

The solution – a new gimmick to enthuse the population yet again about the nuclear industry- the Small Nuclear Reactor

And those wonderful marketing minds raced around to find that solution, and to market it as the solution to some other grave global problem.  And there was a new  problem sitting there, waiting to be exploited. – CLIMATE CHANGE!

You’ve gotta hand it to these nuclear snake oil salesmen – they are doing a great job, worldwide – especially seeing that they know that Small Nuclear Reactors would be no use whatever against global heating.  And governments and media are swallowing their story.

Awkward questions for NuScale on Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)

October 30, 2020

Nu Scam – the Small Nuclear Reactors BIG CLIMATE LIE!

March 7, 2020

Why?   Well, to be charitable, I think that most journalists are too busy, and too poorly informed, to actually do their homework, when they are handed this beautiful copy on a plate.

It’s so much easier to just believe “the experts”.

Perhaps some of them are well paid to do it.

USA’s original plan was to explode a nuclear bomb on the moon

July 21, 2019

Australians seem to have got very excited because Australian space expertise took part in the moon landing. And more excitement about supporting future space travel, and the Mars mission. Few people realise that the whole thing was militaristic from the start.  And it will be so in the future, as Trump is promoting weapons in space. As USA’s Deputy Sherriff, Australia will probably go along with this, and throw more tax-payer funding at it.

Landing on the Moon was option B.
Option A was to detonate a nuke on it.
The idea behind the project was ambitious, but simple — to create an explosion and lunar mushroom cloud so awe-inspiring and unavoidable that no matter where you lived on planet Earth, it would be impossible to ignore the extent of America’s military and technological might.
Inside Project A119, the secret US plan to detonate a nuclear bomb on the Moon, ABC News, By Antony Funnell for Future Tense 18 July 19, Long before JFK spoke inspiringly of sending humans to the Moon, the American intelligence community was concocting a very different plan.
Landing on the Moon was option B.
Option A was to detonate a nuke on it.
In the late 1950s, Washington set in place a secret operation to examine the feasibility of detonating a thermonuclear device on the surface of our closest celestial neighbour.
It was codenamed Project A119.
Had it gone ahead, the expression “shooting for the Moon” would have gained a whole new meaning.
A spectacular scheme born of desperationWhat might now seem unimaginable only makes sense in the context of the Cold War, historian Vince Houghton says……..
The West was given a shock with the launch of Sputnik and very quickly the US Government flew into action and said we need to do something very spectacular,” Dr Houghton says.
“We need to do something so big that the whole world will know that this was just an anomaly, that Sputnik was just a blip, that the United States was still the big kid on the block.”
And with that, Project A119 was born.

ONE HELL OF A MUSHROOM

The idea behind the project was ambitious, but simple — to create an explosion and lunar mushroom cloud so awe-inspiring and unavoidable that no matter where you lived on planet Earth, it would be impossible to ignore the extent of America’s military and technological might.
Appointed to lead the project was a physicist named Leonard Reiffel, who later went on to become the deputy director of the Apollo Program at NASA.
Dr Houghton says when delivering the initial findings in June 1959, cost was among the major reasons why the project was scuttled.
But he says there were also concerns about damaging the lunar landscape.
“There were some scientists who said: ‘You know, we might want to walk up there some day. Maybe we don’t want to blow the hell out of it before we do,'” he says.
“But, again, Sputnik was so terrifying that a lot of people were willing to take that chance.
“A lot of people were willing to say: ‘You know what? The Moon’s big enough that we can nuke it and land on it at the same time, so let’s give this a shot.'”

THE BIG BANG THAT FIZZED

Dr Reiffel’s secret report into the feasibility of a lunar detonation was eventually declassified in 2000.
It carried a rather innocuous title: A Study of Lunar Research Flights.
It suggested that detonating a nuclear device on the Moon was technically feasible, but it gave no substantive detail as to how it might be done.
The project never proceeded to operational phase.
Interviewed by The Guardian shortly after the report’s declassification, Dr Reiffel expressed his personal relief.
“I am horrified that such a gesture to sway public opinion was ever considered,” he said.
“Had the project been made public there would have been an outcry.
“I made it clear at the time there would be a huge cost to science of destroying a pristine lunar environment, but the US Air Force were mainly concerned about how the nuclear explosion would play on Earth.”
Dr Houghton says it’s important to view Project A119 in its historical context.
He details the operation in a new book called Nuking the Moon, which examines a whole slate of radical intelligence projects that were set in motion during WWII and the Cold War, but which were never carried out…………   https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-17/moon-us-plans-cold-war-russia-sputnik/11220340

Nuclear Propaganda and Greenwash – ‘Energy for Humanity’, ‘Nuclear Pride’, ‘Mothers for Nuclear’ etc

June 2, 2019

Energy for Humanity: Nuclear Power – Propaganda and Greenwash,   Energy for Humanity, Nuclear Pride, new NPPs & Propaganda https://www.mitwelt.org/energy-for-humanity-greenwash-propaganda.html
A few years after the devastating nuclear accidents of Fukushima and Tschernobyl, which both resulted in extremely high numbers of casualties, the international nuclear lobby decided to shun the limelight for a little while. But apparently it takes more than just two global disasters to bring them down for good. The global nuclear society, the old and powerful networks between enterprises, lobbyists and nuclear parties are still very much in tact. Even though renewable energies are on the rise in the western world, and many outdated nuclear power plants are going offline, dictatorships and economically weak countries continue to establish new nuclear power plants. That is one of the reasons why new NPP’s are promoted so massively in 2018. The nuclear power plant operators make a big effort to try and win over the wary public after Fukushima and Tschernobyl. Consequently cunning campaigns are run and used to cover up facts, to spread half-truths and to boast.

Energy for Humanity and Nuclear Pride Coalition and their new enforcement strategies
The only thing that has changed over the years are the propaganda and enforcement strategies that are being utilized. In former times, conflicts revolving around nuclear energy, protection of the environment and climate were argued out between environmentalists and opposing enterprises. Unfortunately the environmentalist movement today still thinks and acts upon outdated ways of thinking and conflict patterns. Nowadays those conflicts are being ‘outsourced’. It is alarming how all over Germany organisations of the nuclear and coal corporate groups, foundations and faked citizen initiatives like ‘Nuclear pride’ and “Mothers for Nuclear” are supporting the usage of nuclear power plants and coal power stations while fighting environmentally friendly renewable energies.

The usage of nuclear energy in old swiss NPP’s is a danger to human life and environment. Uranium mining, uranium enrichment and the production of fuel elements have devastating effects on the environment, cause illnesses and even lead to death. Furthermore Nuclear Power Plants emit cancerous nuclear radiation while in standart operation. Disasters like a nuclear accident or terror attack are possible at any time and therefore the life and health of hundreds of thousands of people is under constant threat. Huge areas of landmass would be inhabitable for several human generations. Powerful Swiss nuclear groups have a big undemocratic influence on politics and their attempts at greenwashing and propaganda are very effective. Groups like “Falken am Kühlturm des AKW Leibstadt” and “Energy for Humanity” are being used to distract from the danger a NPP poses. Fact is that the nuclear waste we produce and bury today will continue to emit dangerous levels of radiation for millions of years and could potentially threaten the lives of future generations.

The Nuclear Lobby’s”Low Carbon” Deception

November 21, 2018

Time to just blow this “zero carbon” “low carbon” nonsense out of the water.

The nuclear fuel chain emits carbon all the way through, and I find it extraordinary that journalists mindlessly parrot these lies from the nuclear lobby. Makes you wonder – do the mainstream journalists actually compose the stuff that they write, about nuclear power, or do they just copy the handouts from the industry?

Quite simply, nuclear industry leaders want to get financial help – subsidies, tax credits, from governments that have been duped into believing that nuclear power is “low” or even “zero” carbon.

The also want the “respectability”, public approval,  that comes from being seen as combatting climate change. (even though most were previously in the denying climate change camp).

Anyway – it’s common sense to see that nuclear power is quite a strong emitter of greenhouse gases.  Any thinking non-expert can see that. However, experts see it too. Only one step in that uranium-nuclear chain is low emission – though all nuclear lobbyists claim that this step is “no emission” – the reactor’s operation.

NUCLEAR POWER’S CARBON FOOTPRINT.  – an incomplete list  –  By Lisa Kasenow, quoted in Sayonara Nukes, by Dennis Riches
  1.  MINING – Uranium (or thorium )
  2. MILLING – Transportation to millworks, converting ore to “yellowcake” uranium
  3. CONVERSION – Construction of the uranium (U) conversion facility, transportation of yellowcake, conversion to UF6
  4. ENRICHMENT – Construction of the U enrichment facility, and the cylinders used to transportUF^, transportation of UF6 to the enrichment facility,enrichment. The Paducah, KY, plant uses 3040 megawatts of coal energy at peak power.
  5. FUEL PELLETS – Formation and transportation of uranium fuel pellets
  6. NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION (NPP) – Takes years and uses heavy construction equipment. Steel and concrete construction are carbon intensive.
  7. SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE NPPs – Construction of roads, transmission lines, barge canals.
  8. GENERATORS – Heavy-duty diesel generators run the cooling system during routine maintenance, refuelling, other normal shutdowns, SCRAMs and power outages.
  9. WASTE STORAGE – Building Radioactive Waste (radwaste) storage facilities and storage containers. Transportation of radwaste, sometimes across the country or the ocean.
  10. WASTE PROCESSING – Building reprocessing plant, transportation of radwaste, reprocessing, building storage for then remaining radwaste.
  11. WASTE INCINERATION. – Building radwaste incineration facilities, transporting the waste to the incineration facility, incineration.
  12. WASTE VITRIFICATION – Building vitrification plants, transporting waste to theplant, vitrifyimng the waste (involves heating the materials to very high temperatures).
  13. MONITORING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE -Carbon pollution generated by monitoring and guarding the waste for eternity.
  14. DECOMMISSIONING AND DECONTAMINATION – of NPPs, other reactors, enrichment facilities, and other support infrastructure.
  15. ACCIDENTS – Mitigation and clean-up efforts have a huge carbon footprint.
  16. DAMAGED REACTORS AND ACCIDENTS – Building sarcophagus structures, monitoring, securing and periodically re-entombing failed NPPs for eternity.