Sunday 29 September 2019
Scrutinising the rogue Prorogation of Parliament
Letter sent to The Guardian:
When the prime minister unlawfully prorogued parliament three written parliamentary questions ( PQs) on prorogation remained totally unanswered by the Prime Minister himself at his fantasy Prorogation.
The questions were from Deidre Brock, MP for Edinburgh North and Leith, were submitted on 5 September four days before the illegal Prorogation, and asked the prime minister respectively:
whether the attorney general advised him that the prorogation of Parliament would result in leaving the EU without a deal; if he will publish the records of discussions held on the prorogation of Parliament; on what date the decision was made to prorogue Parliament?
The attorney general told Parliament on 25 September when it resumed, that he was considering whether he could release some of his advice to government on Prorogation, notwithstanding the convention such advice is normally given privately. (https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-09-25/debates/F3541B98-D4E9-487F-BE17-D51C6EF870F2/LegalAdviceProrogation)
But there is no reason the prime minister himself should not now answer Deidre Brock’s three pertinent unanswered questions. Is there?
Saturday 28 September 2019
UK's diplomatic hypocrisy over drones and nuclear weapons
Unpublished letter sent to the Guardian:
I notice the Foreign Office has issued a statement condemning the use of drones against two Saudi Arabian oil facilities. (“Iran denies Saudi drone attacks and warns US ‘your bases are in range’,” 16 September; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/15/iran-denies-drone-attacks-on-saudi-arabia-aramco-ab-qaiq-oil-facility).
The Government condemnation states: “Threatening civilian areas and commercial infrastructure is dangerous, provocative and completely unacceptable.”
These drone strikes may be contrasted with the UK’s clean–hands policy on the militarily offensive use of drones. According to the independent group Drone Wars, the UK has conducted 3,324 uses of Reaper drones on targets in Iraq and Syria since August 2014 (https://dronewars.net/uk-drone-strike-list-2/)
Although no doubt these strikes were against targets intelligence had identified as containing ISIS fighters, many will also have been civilian areas, and there will have been considerable what the military describe euphemistically as “collateral damage” to sanitise the carnage.
Moreover, ten days ago, the British prime minister issued a joint statement with his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, following a brief meeting at10 Downing Street, agreeing “on the need to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons.” (Netanyahu uses No 10 visit to caution over Iran nuclear talks,” 6 September; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/05/israeli-pm-to-urge-boris-johnson-to-end-nuclear-talks-with-iran).
The UK has 180 nuclear warheads, and experts calculate Israel has around 200. Iran has none.
Do British diplomats ever feel ashamed of their nation’s international hypocrisy?
Saturday 21 September 2019
Forty years after the first big catastrophic accident in a commercial nuclear reactor, TMI nuclear plant in the US closes
Yesterday, just over forty years since the first big nuclear accident in a commercial reactor took place on 28 March 1979 at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, the other reactors on the island sit were finally closed down. The on-line media coverage from the local Penn Live TV station is re-produced below
On the same day, another US news outlet, USNEWS.com, exclusively revealed the US Nuclear Regulatory commission is significantly reducing gits nuclear security oversight, which is a very worrisome development. Their revelations are reproduced below too.
Three Mile Island nuclear power station is closing today: Will you miss it
when it’s gone? PennLive, Sept 20, 2019
From the Department of Mixed Feelings: The
nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island will be shut down for the last time
Friday, bringing an end to its active life as a power generating station on a
spit of land in the middle of the Susquehanna River.
This may be cause for celebration if you
are one of the survivors of the March 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island Unit Two,
the sister reactor on the island that made “TMI” one of the midstate’s calling
cards. It was the nation’s worst commercial nuclear accident.
Still, the plant’s closure is cause for
mourning for families and friends of the hundreds of Exelon Generation
employees who, over the next few years, will see their jobs eliminated.
And for still others, it’s just a new
chapter in a story that never seems to end.
The Three Mile Island accident, 40 years later:
Stories worth reading
Updated Mar 27, 2019;
Posted Mar 24, 2019
28
Gallery:
Three Mile Island accident and aftermath, in living color
6
This week marks the 40th anniversary of the
accident at Three Mile Island.
The partial meltdown at TMI took place on
March 28, 1979 and it remains the nation’s worst nuclear accident. And it left
an indelible mark on Pennsylvania.
Today, the plant is slated to be shut down,
although lawmakers are working on solutions to keep the plant open.
This month, PennLive and WITF have
collaborated on stories examining the accident’s impact, the efforts to save
TMI and what happens if the plant shuts down. Both news organizations have
produced stories, photo galleries, videos, radio programs and podcasts
exploring this signature event in Pennsylvania’s history.
Look for more stories on PennLive this
week. And Thursday, WITF will air two documentaries looking back at the
accident and the plant’s uncertain future.
If you’ve missed some of the coverage,
here’s a roundup of our stories on TMI, with links to our coverage.
TMI and public health
PennLive and WITF have produced a pair of
stories examining at the lingering questions surrounding TMI and its impact on
public health. Government officials and scientists have long maintained no one
died or was harmed due to the accident. Many who live in central Pennsylvania
reject that conclusion, citing cancers and early deaths of loved ones.
PennLive’s Ivey DeJesus details the long history
of medical studies around TMI and the suspicions of illnesses and
deaths that endure four decades later.
WITF’s Brett Sholtis looked at the 2017
Penn State study pointing to a correlation
between TMI and a certain type of thyroid cancer, a study that only
stoked fuel to the ongoing debate.
Saving Three Mile Island?
Lawmakers and lobbyists are working
feverishly to keep Three Mile Island open. Some say the plant is a key
component of the region’s economy and Pennsylvania’s energy portfolio. Critics
say they don’t want what they see as a bailout at the expense of consumers.
PennLive’s Charles Thompson details the effort to
preserve TMI.
In a separate story, Charles examines if
the Keystone State energy market
and environment can do without Three Mile Island.
The question of nuclear waste
If Three Mile Island shuts down, what
happens to the plant’s nuclear waste? PennLive’s Wallace McKelvey examines the plant’s
plans to deal with the nuclear waste.
If TMI closes, then what?
WITF’s Ed Mahon examined the impact of TMI’s
closure on the businesses and lives of communities surrounding the
plant.
A PennLive story explores another
consequence if TMI closes: the plant’s
surrounding counties could lose financial aid for emergency planning.
Some also say those emergency planning efforts should continue even if the
plant shuts down.
What would a TMI evacuation look like
today?
When the accident occurred in 1979, more
than 144,000 people in central Pennsylvania hit the road. If there was a need
for a mass evacuation today, it would be very challenging, since the region’s
population has surged over the past four decades. This PennLive piece looks at the daunting
challenges of an evacuation.
The environmental debate
Some view nuclear energy as an undeniable
threat to the environment. Others view nuclear energy as a key component in
strategies to combat climate change. Ivey DeJesus looks at the thorny issue of the
environmental debate concerning nuclear energy.
TMI and pop culture
The TMI accident inspired a song that
became a hit on radio stations throughout the Harrisburg area in 1979. PennLive
spoke with members of the band Maxwell who created “Radiation
Funk,” a song fondly remembered to this day.
WITF’s Lisa Wardle looked at how Three Mile
Island influenced popular culture, from a board game to a memorable
sketch on “Saturday Night Live.”
How Hollywood foreshadowed TMI
Less than two weeks before the accident,
“The China Syndrome” opened in movie theaters and delivered the chilling
scenario of a nuclear emergency. A PennLive piece recalls the eerie timing
of the Hollywood blockbuster.
They covered the TMI accident
A few of The Patriot-News reporters who
covered the accident recalled their experiences.
John Troutman
shared his stories of covering one of the most staggering events in the
commonwealth’s history as a very young reporter. Roger Quigley
explains what it felt like when all hell broke loose. Bill Blando
relayed the confusion and chaos at the time.
PennLive/Patriot-News columnist Nancy Eshelman
shared how the TMI accident unfolded amidst unimaginable terror in her personal
life.
TMI and public health
PennLive and WITF have produced a pair of
stories examining at the lingering questions surrounding TMI and its impact on
public health. Government officials and scientists have long maintained no one
died or was harmed due to the accident. Many who live in central Pennsylvania
reject that conclusion, citing cancers and early deaths of loved ones.
PennLive’s Ivey DeJesus details the long history
of medical studies around TMI and the suspicions of illnesses and
deaths that endure four decades later.
WITF’s Brett Sholtis looked at the 2017
Penn State study pointing to a correlation
between TMI and a certain type of thyroid cancer, a study that only
stoked fuel to the ongoing debate.
Saving Three Mile Island?
Lawmakers and lobbyists are working
feverishly to keep Three Mile Island open. Some say the plant is a key
component of the region’s economy and Pennsylvania’s energy portfolio. Critics
say they don’t want what they see as a bailout at the expense of consumers.
PennLive’s Charles Thompson details the effort to
preserve TMI.
In a separate story, Charles examines if
the Keystone State energy market
and environment can do without Three Mile Island.
The question of nuclear waste
If Three Mile Island shuts down, what
happens to the plant’s nuclear waste? PennLive’s Wallace McKelvey examines the plant’s
plans to deal with the nuclear waste.
If TMI closes, then what?
WITF’s Ed Mahon examined the impact of TMI’s
closure on the businesses and lives of communities surrounding the
plant.
A PennLive story explores another
consequence if TMI closes: the plant’s
surrounding counties could lose financial aid for emergency planning.
Some also say those emergency planning efforts should continue even if the
plant shuts down.
What would a TMI evacuation look like
today?
When the accident occurred in 1979, more
than 144,000 people in central Pennsylvania hit the road. If there was a need
for a mass evacuation today, it would be very challenging, since the region’s
population has surged over the past four decades. This PennLive piece looks at the daunting
challenges of an evacuation.
The environmental debate
Some view nuclear energy as an undeniable
threat to the environment. Others view nuclear energy as a key component in
strategies to combat climate change. Ivey DeJesus looks at the thorny issue of the
environmental debate concerning nuclear energy
A Meltdown in
Nuclear Security
A commando raid
on a nuclear power plant seems the stuff of Hollywood. So why are nuclear
security experts so worried?
By Alan Neuhauser Staff Writer
Sept. 20, 2019
It ranks among the worst-case scenarios for a nuclear power plant: an all-out assault or stealth infiltration by well-trained, heavily armed attackers bent on triggering a nuclear blast, sparking a nuclear meltdown or stealing radioactive material.
For nearly two decades, the nation's nuclear power plants have been required by federal law to prepare for such a nightmare: At every commercial nuclear plant, every three years, security guards take on a simulated attack by hired commandos in so-called "force-on-force" drills. And every year, at least one U.S. nuclear plant flunks the simulation, the "attackers" damaging a reactor core and potentially triggering a fake Chernobyl – a failure rate of 5 percent.
In spite of that track record, public documents and testimony show that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the nation's fleet of commercial nuclear reactors, is now steadily rolling back the standards meant to prevent the doomsday scenario the drills are designed to simulate.
Under pressure from a cash-strapped nuclear energy industry increasingly eager to slash costs, the commission in a little-noticed vote in October 2018 halved the number of force-on-force exercises conducted at each plant every cycle. Four months later, it announced it would overhaul how the exercises are evaluated to ensure that no plant would ever receive more than the mildest rebuke from regulators – even when the commandos set off a simulated nuclear disaster that, if real, would render vast swaths of the U.S. uninhabitable.
Later this year, the NRC is expected to greenlight a proposal that will allow nuclear plants – which currently must be able to fend off an attack alone – to instead begin depending on local and state law enforcement, whose training, equipment and response times may leave them ill-prepared to respond to a military-grade assault.
The moves have inflamed open dissent within the commission, which has been riven in recent years by internecine conflict between Republican and Democratic commissioners.
"I
know how easy it is to cause a Fukushima-scale meltdown ... You can't afford to
be wrong once."
"The NRC staff argues that this approach 'would increase the efficiency of the FOF inspection program,'"' Commissioner Jeff Baran, an Obama administration appointee, wrote in an agency document in October. "NRC would really just be doing less."
The commissioners in the NRC's majority, as well as senior staff members and the nuclear power industry's main trade group, maintain that the changes reflect the improved state of security at the nation's fleet of commercial nuclear plants – and, to some degree, amount to a long-overdue correction to security excesses prompted by the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The force-on-force exercises, they contend, are merely one facet of a rigorous security regime.
"It's just
one out of 10 security inspections that we do, and it's the totality of those
inspections that we do that have us verifying that licensees are operating
their plants in a secure way," says Marissa Bailey, director of the
Division of Security Operations at the NRC.
Nuclear
security experts, consultants, law enforcement veterans and former NRC
commissioners – several of whom spoke with U.S. News on condition of anonymity
in order to address the issue candidly – are nothing short of alarmed. They
openly question whether top regulators at the NRC, ceaselessly lobbied by an
industry strapped for cash, have fallen prey to valuing quarterly earnings,
lucrative contracts and potential plum job opportunities over day-to-day
security.
A longtime
nuclear security expert minced no words about the potential consequences:
"I know
how easy it is to cause a Fukushima-scale meltdown, radiation release or worse.
And the timelines are very short. You don't have much room to maneuver if you
misjudge what the threat is," says Ed Lyman, senior scientist in the
global security program and acting director of the nuclear safety project at
the Union of Concerned Scientists. "You can't afford to be wrong
once."
'No One Likes Security'
Force-on-force
exercises, a mix of live-action role playing and military-grade laser tag, are
not unique to the nuclear sector – they're used to test military bases, and police departments engage in
a version of them in active-shooter drills. For obvious reasons, they remain
cloaked in secrecy.
Some details
about the nuclear drills, though, are publicly available: The attacking force
is expected to deploy a range of tactics, from disabling alarm systems to using
automatic weapons and silencers, attacking one or multiple entry points,
employing land and water vehicles, and using "incapacitating agents"
and explosives. The types of attacks are explicitly outlined in NRC regulations.
"It's a
big, big thing that these folks have to go through under the microscope every
three years," says Justin Corey, a longtime nuclear security consultant
whose work has included advising plants on training and defense measures and
who has participated in force-on-force exercises as an adversary.
Thursday 19 September 2019
Nuclear errors of commission and omission by UK on international stage
On Monday this week,
inexperienced new energy minister Nadhim Zahawi made a speech on behalf of the UK to the
annual General meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. (full speech is reproduced below)
These are the key career
elements of Mr Zadawi’s CV according to Wikipedia,
Following a career as
European Marketing Director for Smith & Brooks Ltd, Nadhim Zahawi
co-founded pollster YouGov, and was
YouGov's CEO from 2005 to 2010. In 2010 he was selected by the local
Conservative association for Stratford-on-Avon as a
prospective parliamentary candidate in the 2010 general election, and won the
seat. He was subsequently re-elected in 2015 and 2017.
As a backbench MP, he served on the Business, Innovation and Skills
Committee. In October 2013, he became a member of the Number 10 Policy Unit. From 9 January 2018 to 25 July 2019 he served
as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State at the Department
for Education, with responsibility for Children and Families.
Since 26 July
2019 he has been Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Industry at the business and energy
department, BEIS. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadhim_Zahawi
)
His expertise on energy
has been less than two months. So perhaps he can be excused for not being very
conversant with details of nuclear, or wider energy policy. But his BEIS departmental
speech writers have no such excuse.
Why, then, have they
chosen to put significant disingenuous
words into the new energy minister’s mouth?
For example, Zadawi
told the IAEA General Assembly: “The UK Government is
committed to tackling the global challenge of climate change. We recently
became the first major economy to set a target of net zero greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050. We believe nuclear energy will play a key role in achieving
this..”
This
assertion misrepresents nuclear’s relationship to carbon emissions: it
represents a significant error of omission:
A recent and comprehensive Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) of greenhouse
gas emissions from differing power generation technologies by Mark Jacobson,
professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, California - and director of its
Atmosphere/Energy Program - have indicated that nuclear CO2 emissions are between 10 to
18 times greater than those from renewables. He is very qualified for such
analysis, being also Senior Fellow at the Precourt
Institute for Energy, and at the Woods
Institute for the Environment, where he has developed computer models to
study the effects of fossil fuel and biomass burning on air pollution, weather,
and climate.
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy
security† Energy & Environmental Science, 1 December 2008;
In a newly completed chapter by Professor Jacobson in a forthcoming
energy book, Evaluation of Nuclear Power as a Proposed Solution to Global
Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security, in 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything [Textbook
in Preparation] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html) he argues cogently:
“There is no such thing as a zero-
or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to
the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. However,
all plants also emit 4.4 g-CO2e/kWh from the water vapor and heat they release.
This contrasts with solar panels and wind turbines, which reduce heat or water
vapor fluxes to the air by about 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh for a net difference from this
factor alone of 6.6 g-CO2e/kWh.
“Overall,” he concludes, “emissions from new nuclear are 78 to178
g-CO2/kWH, not close to 0”
[See also, a meta-study by Dr
Benjamin K Sovacool, Professor of Energy Policy at the Science Policy Research
Unit (SPRU) at the School of Business, Management, and Economics, part of the
University of Sussex, who serves as Director of the Sussex Energy Group and
Director of the Center on Innovation and Energy Demand [which involves the
University of Oxford and University of Manchester] “Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from
nuclear power: A critical survey, Energy
Policy, 36, 2940-2953, 2008. https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf)
He concludes the following:“This article screens 103 lifecycle
studies of greenhouse gas-equivalent emissions for nuclear power plants to
identify a subset of the most current, original, and transparent studies.
It begins by briefly detailing the
separate components of the nuclear fuel cycle before explaining the methodology
of the survey and exploring the variance of lifecycle estimates. It calculates
that while the range of emissions for nuclear energy over the lifetime of a
plant, reported from qualified studies examined, is from 1.4 g of carbon
dioxide equivalent per kWh (g CO2e/kWh) to 288 g CO2e/kWh, the mean value is 66
g CO2e/kWh. The article then explains some of the factors responsible for the
disparity in lifecycle estimates, in particular identifying errors in both the
lowest estimates (not comprehensive) and the highest estimates (failure to
consider co-products). It should be noted that nuclear power is not directly
emitting greenhouse gas emissions, but rather that lifecycle emissions occur
through plant construction, operation, uranium mining and milling, and plant
decommissioning.”]
Why do BEIS officials not know this?
Later in his speech, Zadawi asserts “some States continue to
challenge the global non-proliferation system”, and immediately fingered Iran.
Yet Iran has no nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the UK is a self-appointed nuclear weapons
[of mass destruction] state, which pledged in 1968, under article 6 of the
nuclear non -proliferation treaty (NPT) -
which British diplomats helped to draft in the mid1960s – “to pursue
negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of
the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament…”(www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text/)
Not one UK nuclear weapon has been withdrawn from operational deployment in the e51 years since as a result of “negotiations”. The only nuclear weapons withdrawn from service are those deemed redundant by the Government. The UK’s nuclear destruction capacity has massively increased in this period, with the deployment of the mass killer Trident WMD.
The hypocrisy of the speech writer (s) text is spectacular.
UK Statement to the 63rd
International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference
Delivered by
Minister for Industry and Business Nadhim Zahawi in Vienna, 16 September 2019.
Published 17
September 2019
From:
Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy,
and Nadhim Zahawi MP
Delivered on:
16 September 2019 (Original script, may
differ from delivered version)
Madam
President,
Congratulations
on your appointment as President of this Conference. It is my great pleasure to
lead the UK’s delegation this year, and to continue the close partnership
between the UK Government and the IAEA.
It is with
sadness that I reflect on the passing of former Director General Amano. A
committed public servant and friend of the United Kingdom, he led the Agency
through significant challenges and leaves a positive legacy for global peace,
security and development.
Madam
President,
The UK
Government is committed to tackling the global challenge of climate change. We
recently became the first major economy to set a target of net zero greenhouse
gas emissions by 2050.
We believe
nuclear energy will play a key role in achieving this, so our landmark Nuclear
Sector Deal is bringing industry and Government together to ensure the nuclear
sector thrives in the UK.
As work
progresses on our new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point C, we are exploring
innovative financing models for new build projects and ways to reduce the costs
of decommissioning. We are also exploring the potential of small and advanced
modular reactors.
At the same
time, our Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy will develop new talent
and a diverse workforce for the UK.
Mindful of
our responsibilities to future generations, we have also launched consent-based
processes to identify a location for a Geological Disposal Facility for our
higher activity radioactive waste.
Madam
President,
Next year’s
50th anniversary of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is an important moment to
emphasise the importance of its three Pillars, and celebrate the Agency’s
support for its peaceful uses and non-proliferation aspects.
The UK is
among the biggest supporters of the Agency’s Technical Cooperation Programme
for sustainable development. I am proud to pledge our 2020 contribution of
€3.8m to the TC Fund today. I urge all Member States to join us in pledging and
paying their full share.
It is right
that more countries benefit from peaceful nuclear technologies. But this brings
responsibilities to protect people and maintain public acceptance of nuclear
energy.
If something
goes wrong, whether accidental or deliberate, all States must meet their
obligations to openness and transparency with their neighbours.
We strongly
support the IAEA’s work to help Member States implement robust nuclear safety
and security measures. To ensure our own regulations meet the highest
standards, the UK will host an Integrated Regulatory Review Service mission
next month. We encourage others to use IAEA advisory services.
Madam
President,
The
application of IAEA safeguards is indispensable for global peace and security.
All States should ratify an Additional Protocol, the gold standard for
safeguards agreements. The UK’s own new safeguards arrangements are ready and
will ensure we continue to meet our obligations once EURATOM arrangements no
longer apply to the UK.
However, some
States continue to challenge the global non-proliferation system.
The UK calls
on Iran to reverse its suspension of stockpile and enrichment limits and comply
with its obligations under the JCPOA. We welcome the Agency’s monitoring of
Iranian compliance with the deal, and we remain committed to its full
implementation.
North Korea’s
recent missile launches and violations of UN resolutions are of great concern.
We are clear that sanctions must remain in place until North Korea takes
concrete steps towards denuclearisation. Finally, Syria has not met its
safeguards obligations since 2011. This issue must remain on the Board’s agenda
until Syria returns to full compliance with its obligations.
Madam
President,
The UK will
continue to give the Secretariat, and the future Director General, our full
support in fulfilling the Agency’s unique and important role.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)