Zero Carbon - Using Nuclear and GMOs in CCS are Unlawful and Undemocratic

I'm having a meltdown and growing two heads, just thinking about it!

And this  photo was the last time the Irish Government said go ahead, bring some natural gas onshore, Shell. So we think we can manage nuclear without a leak or explosion or other environmental catastrophe. Be it on your own consciences. 

I've put the full presentations below byDr Andy Stirling and Dr Phil Johnstone - Sussex University researchers, who present irrefutable evidence that nuclear power is obsolete in achieving zero-carbon, but exists now purely to underpin military use. 

But, hypothetically, if anyone asks you in a council meeting, please say: NO to Nuclear and No to Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) Technology (Genetic Engineering) 

No to Nuclear energy for Ireland by pipe from France:

1) "Fail-safe nuclear reactors was what was written in the policy I just saw! The Modular reactors and other ‘New Generation’ nuclear projects proposed have not been piloted or tested. Now there is not even time for a development plan let alone delivery. I refuse to have nuclear modular reactors and FAIL-SAFE in the same sentence in Irish policy (see the report attached). We are being lobbied to and endangered. 

 

 Ireland is using nuclear power already, I just gathered, fed from the UK (The UK believes that is a pipe for nuclear waste). Do the Irish Public know? Isn't nuclear power (capable of causing a nuclear winter) and green hydrogen (20% more explosive than petrol) an insanely explosive combination? Please nobody fall for the line that renewables are intermittent. All costs have been levelled and we can produce more than enough.

 

Even at current prices, civilian nuclear charges will be £102 per Megawatt/hour. Current contract prices, in off-shore wind in comparison, are still going down and are already at £40 per MW/h. The problems of intermittency and inter-seasonality of renewables are talked about as a problem but found to not actually affect the cost greatly. The figures of 56-73 MW/h for on-shore wind, 53-56 MW/h for large scale solar and 69-85 MW/h per MWh for off-shore wind are ‘enhanced levelized costs’ by BEIS, which means that they include any pessimistic calculations as to intermittency of supply.

 

2) No to Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) Algae Technology

Algae provides up to 80% of our oxygen. Carbon Capture and Storage Technology involves producing billions of gene edited microorganisms - algae, in this instance, and microbes are not traceable, recallable or containable. 

 

The reason given for using the new gene editing technologies in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), such as CRISPR, is to enhance algae strains, to reproduce at sufficient scales to feasibly absorb the amount of carbon dioxide we are producing. Statistics like algae can consume 400 times more CO2 than trees are stated with the caveat; only if algae are produced in the amounts made possible by genetic editing. 

 

The danger is that scientists cannot know what would happen if a new genetically engineered organism was released. The project at University of Buffalo for the US Energy Council categorically only selectively breed algae, for stronger strains, in light of this ignorance of how a GE organism could upset the balance of the microbiome.  CCS research let alone commercialization need to be regulated as they are already recognized as high-risk projects, by both private and public investors. 

 

Before governments agree to cover the costs of the risks and simply commit funds to improving containment, storage and transportation systems where risks are highest, more detailed risk assessments are needed. Responsibility for managing the risks also has to be allocated, to individual manufacturers. Keep bearing in mind how, if the oceans were overtaken by a biomass of GE algae, there could be a sudden reversal of the production of the Earth’s oxygen; a genuine environmental catastrophe.

 

Nuclear full research presentation:

Dr Andy Stirling and Dr Phil Johnstone are Sussex University researchers, who present compelling evidence that nuclear power is obsolete in achieving zero-carbon, but exists now purely to underpin military use.

Our think tanks are only proponents of civil nuclear power because they pay for military nuclear power expertise and you will find think tanks' research is part funded by military technology spending. The Green Party surely don't want to work with the UK or France on this. There is a new pipe for nuclear from France to Ireland being built but Ireland 'can't manage the infrastructure for off-shore wind'. Really? I'd have said the latter was a walk in the park in comparison.  

 

 

 

 "The 2020 French defence bill allocated €4.7 billion or €8,894 per minute for the French arsenal in 2020. ($5.7 billion, or $10,786 per minute). This is an inflation-adjusted increased of $800 million from 2019"      "At least €8 billion of French taxpayer funds is anticipated by Airbus for future work on the French nuclear arsenal. Airbus (mostly through the MBDA joint venture working on nuclear weapons) spent €2 million lobbying Frency policymakers in 2020."   "The United Kingdom spent $6.2 billion (£4.5 billion), or $11,769 per minute, on nuclear weapons in 2020. During a global pandemic." 

 

3) Nuclear  as Climate Action?! Politicians, government and military are so committed to civil nuclear power? (Professors from Salisbury, UK)

"As the years go by it is getting progressively more and more difficult to understand. This is especially in relation to their main argument that nuclear power is the way to achieve Climate Change mitigation goals.  

 

In criticism of the Energy policy, the existing nuclear power is manifestly slow in reducing climate change. The Hinkly Point C project is running very behind schedule. The government promised that Christmas dinners 2017 would be celebrated using power from the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant. And if not ‘the lights would go out’. It is already running 10 years late and it is the same in France and for Finnish nuclear projects and many have not yet been started.

  

The UK government has installed 10 gigawatts of offshore wind, alone. This does not account for on shore wind or solar. But it does already amount to more power than would be generated by ten of the new modular reactor plants in the proposed programme. Radical acceleration of renewable energy programmes is clearly possible.

 

The costs further compound the issue: For Hinkley Point C electricity, consumers will be forced to enter a 35 year contract. Even at current prices, charges will be £102 per Megawatt/hour. Current contract prices, in off-shore wind in comparison, are still going down and are already at £40 per MW/h. The problems of intermittency and inter-seasonality of renewables are talked about as a problem but found to not actually affect the cost greatly. The figures of 56-73 MW/h for on-shore wind, 53-56 MW/h for large scale solar and 69-85 MW/h per MWh for off-shore wind are ‘enhanced levelized costs’ by BEIS, which means that they include any pessimistic calculations as to intermittency of supply. Therefore, the argument is over on cost but the government, instead of revealing these figures, released its Energy White Paper in December 2020 with no costs on it. This is the first time such a White Paper has been delivered. 

 

Speculative nuclear programmes have always included escalating, not falling, future costs. There is very little evidence in history or experience that suggests that oncoming nuclear plants, which have always been more expensive, will turn out to be less so. 

 

Another cost problem is that spending on nuclear takes money away from spending on renewables, which could achieve the climate change goals faster.

 

Looking at trends and patterns over time also demonstrates that the efficacy gap of nuclear, for delivering electricity and mitigating climate change, is growing. Another group studying levelized costs note that solar and wind have gone down massively in the last ten years. In fact solar has gone down by 900% in its cost. Wind has gone down by 70%. In contrast, nuclear costs have gone up by 26%. So, over the passage of time, they are not going down.

 

Then there is this idea of firm nuclear power or baseload that the British are particularly caught up with. This idea proposed that the inflexibility of nuclear power, that it can’t go up or down in its output, is somehow an advantage. The CEO of the National Grid NGC called it an out-dated idea even back in 2015 and actually rigidly inflexible nuclear power is actually a disadvantage in smart grid sytems. 

 

On the other hand, the UK’s renewable resources are far larger than their foreseeable demand. This means that we cannot only deliver the electricity needs of the country but also the transport needs, via electricity, of the country from the available, viable renewable resource. 

 

There's often a clash between what they publish in background documents and what senior figures and scientists say. Official data confirms that renewables, with their intermittency, are capable of supplying the smart grids, which are being investigated by all sorts of demand management techniques. They show that the inflexible nature of nuclear power plants, becomes much more of a disadvantage. The idea that small modular reactors can be more flexible is actually also speculative. Even though modular reactors are already used like that in the military, there are safety implications in ramping up nuclear power and turning it up and down. France is already using nuclear in that way and we have yet to see what the regulatory repercussions are actually going to be. 

 

In short, renewables provide a domestic power supply that is safer, they are more diverse and they are more secure than nuclear power. 

 

Renewables and energy efficiency investments are also much more productive of jobs. So the picture really is stark, even when looking at the government's own data. So, why is it that we are committing to nuclear power? It is actually obvious.

 

It is the military who perceive a need for the civil nuclear programme. It is not actually for nuclear weapons, but actually for nuclear submarine propulsion. These are very difficult artefacts to build. They need a massive nuclear industry. The companies and engineers for civil power are all involved in building the propulsion systems as well. What is remarkable is if you look at any of the Defence documents in the UK. The military are very clear that they need the civil nuclear power ‘at any cost’, in order to be able to build nuclear propelled submarines. In contrast, in the Energy Policy literature, there is a total silence. It is not acknowledged that it is the military that are the drivers. The UK government stick to their untenable and spurious argument that nuclear power is justified as an energy strategy and that nuclear is there for climate change. 

 

The upshot of this, because nuclear is so much more expensive than alternative zero carbon options, that consumers and taxpayers are paying tens of millions of pounds, hundreds of billions of pounds over the decades, of these contracts. This is in order to subsidise an industry that is only needed for military purposes. Remember that these contracts for electricity are regressive. It is the poorest households that are disproportionately charged for their electricity. 

 

This picture of costs is without even looking at the massive costs of development, research, decommissioning, waste management or security provision, such as the dedicated armed police force. They don’t include the cost of anti proliferation measures and to stop diversions of fissile materials that could complete a nuclear reaction. These are additional costs that are covered by all the UK nations including Scotland, where there is very strong opposition to nuclear power, which may become more significant. 

 

So investing in nuclear, rather than investing in renewables and efficiency is clearly impeding progress on climate change. Providing affordable energy and achieving climate targets are actually a legal duty on government. So, the official position of prioritising nuclear power is not only unjustified by evidence, it is actually arguably unlawful.

 

 The use of nuclear power, even where it is happening, is slow and it is costly. It is dishonest because the real reasons for pursuing it are not being given. It is undemocratic and it is unlawful. 

 

Look in more detail at the civil military links.  

One of the first places to look is at the broader international picture. There is a correlation between nuclear ambition and different types of geopolitical status. The leading global military powers are the most committed to large scale new nuclear bills. There is no global or regional military power that does not hold an active history of very strong pressures for civil nuclear power. No country, either with or planning nuclear weapons or submarines, is currently pursuing either a nuclear moratorium, or phase out. There really does seem to be a relationship and it becomes irrefutable when we look at the specifics.

 

The president of France, Emmanuel Macron says to oppose civilian nuclear, in terms of production and research does not make any sense for a country like theirs, because without civilian nuclear there’s no military nuclear and without military nuclear there’s no civilian nuclear. That was in December 2020.

 

The Atlantic Council, which is a large security think tank, describes how the US has a large educational Research and Development and industrial support system that underpins its civilian nuclear power sector. The same report goes on to actually quantify the level of subsidy that civilian nuclear power makes to military nuclear power; at least $42 billion is gathered annually, in the pursuit of US national security priorities. 

 

If there was a sustained decline in the commercial industry, it would also have a negative impact on the US nuclear naval programme. This is what was reported at the energy innovation reform project 2017 at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.  

 

A former energy secretary said, in 2018, that naval nuclear capability is tied to the fate of the commercial nuclear sector, as long as a strong domestic supply chain is needed to provide the nuclear Navy requirements. This supply chain has a very strong overlap, which is very clear in France and in the US. It is a bit more hidden in the UK but if you get into the defence documents, you will find its acknowledgement. The Royal Academy of Engineering in 2009 said skills required in the design, build, operation and disposal of naval nuclear reactors are in short supply and the increasingly expensive decline of civil nuclear programmes, has forced the nuclear submarine programme to develop and fund its own expertise to remain operational. This points out that some of the costs were, before, being covered by the Civilian programme. 

 

Rolls Royce, in 2009, talked about skill synergies and said that skills are considered to be transferable between military propulsion and civil programmes. They said a larger involvement in the broader industry will also have a spill-over benefit to military capability, in skills, development and experience exchange. 

 

Doulton Institute says UK is not now in the position of having financial or personnel resources to develop either civilian or military nuclear programme in isolation. Rolls Royce, in their 2017 report, concluded that "links between the civil and naval sector need to be encouraged" – even though this has now been taken off their site! The report also described the advantage of small modular reactor systems for civilian nuclear power development as a subsidy to the military, to relieve the Defence Ministry of the burden of developing and retaining the skills and capability on the military side. That burden relates to costs. 

 

So a lot of the documentation or the information is to be found in the defence side of the policy documents. There is a crisis in military nuclear skills across the enterprise. The availability of deep specialist expertise is key and suitably qualified staff appear to be at the bare minimum necessary to deliver the programme. This was revealed by the Ministry of Defence in 2014, in a redacted Freedom of Information secret report, written for the submarine development programme. 

 

So, part of the crisis is in research capabilities. The Ministry of Defence's programme had been underwritten by civil nuclear research that has been dismantled and commercialised and expertise in these activities has atrophied. This was also in that secret documentation, only exposed through the FOI.

 

The government response was to say that the programme should seek imaginative methods to better engage with the emergent civil nuclear programme, to the benefit of defence. A research programme group was established to look at leveraging civil nuclear investment to maximum effect. The Ministry of Defence revisited the possible option of utilising other nuclear facilities, including those in the civil sector. This was taken up by the government in their nuclear sector deal that actually committed to increasing the opportunities for transferability between the civil and defence industries, to increase mobility to ensure resources are available. 

 

In contrast, the UK energy sector displays an odd and contrasting silence on the connection to military nuclear. The Oxford Economics Government Consulting report, in 2013, they state that naval and civil reactor industries are often viewed as separate, and to some extent unrelated. However, the timeline of the UK’s nuclear industry has clear interaction between the two, particularly from a supply chain development point of view. The Nuclear Research Institute says, though, this link does need to be carefully managed, to avoid the perception that civil and military nuclear programmes are one and the same. Nuclear submarines already suffer criticism because their through life costs cannot be absorbed or masked by other programmes as can be the case with fast jets or large standing land forces. The obvious implication, in light of the other information, is that the intention would be to mask those costs. 

 

The Ministry of Defence permanent secretary and lead civil nuclear contract negotiator confirmed that the UK is completing the build of the nuclear submarines, so there is very "definitely an opportunity for the nation to grasp, in terms of building up its nuclear skills. He went on to say, he does not think that that was going to be happen by accident but it was going to require concerted government action to make it happen." 

 

After many years without success, this year the link between the military and civil nuclear industries has been covered, in the newspapers in the BBC and The Daily Telegraph. In Scotland, it has been really picked up and there was a parliamentary motion in Scottish Government, where the links were highlighted. And yet, the silence continues from the Government. 

 

That is a problem for democracy, as is the Energy white paper that came out with no costings on it, allowing the enthusiasm for nuclear to continue despite renewables being manifestly cheaper. 

 

It has been highlighted that there are strategic factors beyond Energy policy that explain not just the enthusiasm but the otherwise inexplicable UK policy on nuclear. It is clear that the military rationale is the most likely and yet the government does not officially acknowledge this. At about the same time that the 2020 White Paper came out, buried away in the Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, was a very candid interview with Rolls Royce, where they said that "developing a small modular reactor programme would help Rolls Royce maintain UK capability for the military nuclear naval programme". It was also stated by an employee of Rolls Royce that it was "complementary to have a thriving UK domestic civilian nuclear programme alongside the submarine programme, for the strongest skills base and the strongest supply chain." 

 

The fact that the interview was buried away; the incredible level of lobbying in favour of nuclear in the media and amount of nuclear advocacy - at the time when the case for nuclear is at its weakest – shows the extent of the problem for democracy. 

 

The Greens For Nuclear account was set up in 2019, with the sole purpose of intensely promoting nuclear. It involved a Twitter campaign by failed Green Party leadership candidate, Rosie Sexton, consistently urging the greens to reconsider their position on nuclear. They refused to listen to any evidence, in regard to the cost or the other weaknesses of a nuclear as an Energy solution. 

 

 

There were several UK pro-nuclear power groups set up in 2020 including Mothers for nuclear energy, Liberal Democrats for nuclear, and Friends of Nuclear Energy. There were demonstrations by activists, such as Nuclear for Net Zero. Isn't it amazing that these activities should start to happen when the case for nuclear energy and for new nuclear is so weak. 

 

The same thing is happening in the US, with the reframing of nuclear. There is the so-called Good Energy Collective making the progressive case for nuclear. In fact, the collective is led by former members of the Brace Institute. 

 

Something very strange is going on in the UK in the moment in regards to nuclear and it is a serious problem in regards to democracy. What is the issue? Nuclear is slow, it is costly and it is dishonest, because the real drivers are not spoken about. This is undemocratic and unlawful. The main points: 

1. Existing nuclear power is slow in reducing climate change, new forms are even slower. 

2. Nuclear power is costly at reducing climate change, new forms are almost certainly costlier.

3. Renewables and energy efficiency are demonstrably faster and cheaper at averting climate disruption.

4. The established trend is that the nuclear competitiveness gap is growing, not diminishing. 

5. Other arguments for inflexible nuclear output are acknowledged by industry to be out-dated. 

6. Whilst energy policy is silent, defence sources are clear that major nuclear drivers are military.

7. Massive government nuclear support is justified as energy strategy.  

The result is that many 10s of billions of pounds are directed from consumers and taxpayers.

 

If civilian nuclear power is only there to prop up nuclear weapons spending, let's look at the actual figures: 

 

 

 

 

Read this report ICAN:

 

 “Complicit: 2020 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending” unveils one year of the cycle of spending on nuclear weapons from countries to defence contractors to lobbyists and think tanks and back again. In 2020, the report estimates that nine countries spent $72.6 billion on nuclear weapons, $27.7 billion of which went to a dozen defence contractors to build nuclear weapons. Those contractors then spent $117 million lobbying policy makers and up to $10 million funding think tanks."

Carbon Capture and Storage Technology

 

This involves producing billions of GE Microorganisms - algae, in this instance, and microbes are not traceable, recallable or containable. Watch this short video 16 minutes to understand the balance of the microbiome including bacteria, viruses, algae and fungi, to understand what can go wrong. Algae provides between 50% to 80% of our oxygen.

 

The reason given for using the new gene editing technologies in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), such as CRISPR, is to enhance algae strains, to reproduce at sufficient scales to feasibly absorb the amount of carbon dioxide we are producing. Statistics like algae can consume 400 times more CO2 than trees are stated with the caveat; only if algae are produced in the amounts made possible by genetic editing. 

 

The danger is that scientists cannot know what would happen if a new genetically engineered organism was released. The project at University of Buffalo for the US Energy Council categorically only selectively breed algae, for stronger strains, in light of this ignorance of how a GE organism could upset the balance of the microbiom  CCS research and commercialization are recognized as high-risk projects, by both private and public investors. Before governments agree to cover the costs of the risks and simply commit funds to improving containment, storage and transportation systems where risks are highest, more detailed risk assessments are needed. Responsibility for managing the risks also has to be allocated, to individual manufacturers. Keep bearing in mind how, if the oceans were overtaken by a biomass of GE algae, there could be a sudden reversal of the production of the Earth’s oxygen; a genuine environmental catastrophe. microbes are not traceable, recallable or containable. 

 

 

5G is fine says the World Health Organization

 The main component of the 5G network is the millimeter waves. A study by the Centre for Environment and Vocational Studies of Punjab University, researchers observed that after exposure to radiation from a cell tower for just 5-30 minutes, the eggs of sparrows were disfigured.

The disfiguration of birds exposed for such a short amount of time to these frequencies is significant considering that the new 5G network will have a much higher density of base stations (small cells) - every 250 metres.and therefore mutations that could easily threaten a whole population’s survival.

A study done in Spain showed breeding, nesting, and roosting were negatively affected by microwave radiation emitted by a cell tower.

Bees are an incredibly important part of the earth’s ecosystem. Around one-third of the food produced today is dependent on bees for pollination. Warnke found that beehives exposed for just ten minutes to 900MHz waves fell victim to colony collapse disorder. Colony collapse disorder is when many of the bees living in the hive abandon the hive leaving the queen, the eggs, and a few worker bees. The worker bees exposed to this radiation also had worsened navigational skills, causing them to stop returning to their original hive after about ten days.

Can I ask that planning permission for the mast they sneaked up here be revoked? I just spotted the first time, I've been looking for it for 8 months. There will be others I'm sure now I know what I'm looking for. How are we supposed to protect biodiversity and grow food if this detrimental new technology is allowed? Anyway, anyone? Do we have a case to stop it? Has anyone tried?

(Comment: 5G is the microwave frequency and is commonplace in Shenzen etc plus facial recognition, drone surveillance and social credit and identity and yet no western government questions it, have all of them been compromised ? ) 

I am not sure how they all got compromised. I think in Ireland, Eamon Ryan was blinded by being given that huge technology budget to manage but I'm apalled that the greens didn't push for one independent study (or look at someone else's). What a hideous legacy. 

So I did four things, all quite telling. 

1) I appealed to TDs early last year with everything I had and I got one reply. One sentence: WHO says it's safe. Bill Gates of Microsoft Technology, is the WHO's biggest funder. 

2) The public tender to run the National Biodiversity Data Centre came up this time last year, for €450,00. I went for it with business partners, including a national training school, prepared to roll out citizen science training to engage every college, community and farm in monitoring biodiversity before and after the 5G infrastructure went in. We also committed to monitoring the protected areas which Ireland is being fined for (every day) since we failed to protect them since 1992 when they were designated. We also committed to assembling a forum of doctoral researchers to interrogate the data from their various disciplines, so that the centre could support community actions to protect nature against big industry. We also proposed to create an information management system so that green deal money could be drawn down from the EU on the basis of positive climate action results evidenced by the data centre. Suffice to say the 'infomatics' guy got it who has been keeping it tipping along the last four years, absolutely no use to anyone. 

3) I went for the tender to train local councils in Climate Action and how to implement their Climate Action Charter. Didn't get that either. 

4) Every time I raise a valid question about EMF or 5G or anything else, I am told to make myself a tinfoil hat to protect myself and I might well go that way! But to roll out blatantly damaging technology like that is criminal I think and I'm having a hard time forgiving them. 

5) I saved the worst news until last. Valentia has 350 hubs on it. I couldn't find one of them. When I read about the different companies who rolled out the rural broadband there last year, I can't work out if they are saying it is fibre-less broadband or they are using fibre. If they are not, that is pure wifi of the 5G kind. I also can't work out if it is still beaming away, even when few people actually have devices/routers that can receive 5G. Kind of what strength it is and impact on biodiversity and birds and people even before it's used? Do anyone know?