Sunday, January 29, 2023

Taiwan Is Retreating From Nuclear Energy. At What Cost?

Alexander C. Kaufman
Fri, January 27, 2023 

The Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant, shown here on Nov. 23, in New Taipei City, Taiwan, sits idle. If it operated at full capacity, it could meet an estimated 7% of Taiwan’s electricity demand.


VERY LONG READ

NEW TAIPEI CITY, Taiwan ― Shrouded in late-morning mist and fenced in behind barbed wire, the facility looked at first glance like the sort of abandoned fortress where a mad scientist might carry out taboo experiments. As the rain petered out, an unremarkable exterior came into clearer view: a hulking pair of windowless cubes with what looks like a smokestack rising between them.

What you make of what’s going on inside the Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant depends on whether you think atomic energy and the radioactive waste it produces present more urgent threats than climate change or World War III

If you agree that shutting down all nuclear reactors should take priority, then you’ll be pleased to know the plant, right now, does nothing. In 2016, before the facility could be completed, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party took power and swiftly passed a national law mandating a “nuclear-free homeland” by 2025. With that, Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, canceled Lungmen and started shutting down reactors at Taiwan’s other three nuclear stations.

If, on the other hand, you think Taiwan can ill afford to eliminate its most dependable source of carbon-free electricity as emissions soar and China credibly threatens to seize control of the self-governing island for the first time in more than a century, then the idle Lungmen plant is a monument to squandered potential.

If Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant was in use, it would provide a source of energy that would not be as vulnerable to blockades by China causing electricity disruptions.

If Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant was in use, it would provide a source of energy that would not be as vulnerable to blockades by China causing electricity disruptions.

Its two 1,300-megawatt reactors are among the most advanced commercial fission machines on the market and would have been the first of their kind constructed outside Japan. At full capacity, this plant could meet roughly 7% of Taiwan’s electricity demand by itself without producing carbon dioxide (CO₂) regardless of whether the sun shines or the wind blows. And while the coal and gas that now provide most of Taiwan’s power depend on steady imports, nuclear reactors could crank for up to two years before needing fresh uranium fuel. That makes atomic energy less vulnerable to a Chinese blockade, like the one that followed Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s controversial visit to Taipei in August, when the California Democrat was speaker of the U.S. House.

“It’s not fair to Taiwan and it’s not fair to the nuclear engineers who spent the best years of their lives working on this plant,” Wang Bohui, the retired supervisor who oversaw Lungmen’s construction, said, wiping raindrops from his glasses as he looked at the facility from a park between the plant and a scenic cove it would have used for cooling water. “It was all for political reasons.”

I had come to Taiwan in early November for a weeklong press junket with about 30 journalists from more than a dozen countries. The itinerary, organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, included visits to government agencies, politically aligned think tanks and corporate headquarters of companies that play a role in the green economy. The trip overlapped with the United Nations’ climate summit in Egypt, where Taiwan’s diplomatic isolation prevented one of the world’s top 25 emitters from participating in the carbon-cutting negotiations.


On Aug. 3, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), left, speaks with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen after arriving at the president's office in Taipei. China retaliated for the visit with a blockade that held up natural gas shipments to the island.

The message was clear: Taiwan faces a growing threat from mainland China ― the digital affairs ministry clocked millions of cyberattacks on government websites per day ― and the world must pay attention. For many, it was all they could think about. Since Russia invaded Ukraine last February, pundits the world over have predicted that it was only a matter of when, not if, China would launch a similar takeover of the island it once controlled. As Ukraine’s democratic allies braced for power shortages amid the rush to stop importing Russian gas and oil, nuclear reactors suddenly seemed like practical and dependable assets for any energy arsenal.

Even as combat threatened an accident at its largest nuclear plant, Ukrainian officials were placing orders for more reactors and buying up electric vehicles, seeing the battery-propelled cars powered with fission electricity from atomic stations Kyiv controls as a safer bet than ones that run on Russian diesel.

But the rumble of bombs exploding from above seemed a more distant concern in Taiwan than the tectonic thunder below. The island sits on the edge of the Pacific Ring of Fire, a seismic hotspot prone to major earthquakes like the one in 2011 which caused a tsunami that flooded generators at the nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan, triggering a meltdown.

“We get earthquakes every single month, if not day, if not moment,” said Kuan-Ting Chen, a special assistant to President Tsai. “Sometimes it’s irreversible when human engineering cannot handle a problem that big. The consequence would not just be one generation’s to handle; it will be for generations and generations to face.”


A protester in traditional Tao dress at a March 2021 anti-nuclear rally in Taipei holds a picture of low-radiation nuclear waste being stored on remote Orchid Island.

Despite the visceral fears of blaring sirens and leaking nuclear material, the risks at the plant may be overstated. A Fukushima-like event at Lungmen could, according to one study that used an advanced computer model to measure how radiation would spread, contaminate nearly 10% of the island’s land, but with a dose equal to five pelvic CT scans. Another study published a year after the disaster blamed lax Japanese regulators for failing to enforce rules on the Fukushima plant’s owner. Recent research on cattle left alive in the Fukushima exclusion zone found no signs of cancer spikes, leading some scientists to conclude that stress from the evacuation posed a greater long-term health risk than radiation exposure.

Radiation measurements are displayed on a lighted sign at Lanyu airport on Orchid Island, Taiwan.

And Taiwan’s nuclear fleet has weathered shockwaves since its inception. The deadliest earthquake in Taiwan’s modern history killed thousands in 1999, but the most directly affected nuclear reactors automatically shut off, restarting just two days later.

Admittedly, nuclear safety is a secondary concern, Tzi-Chin Chang, Taiwan’s environment minister, told me in a conference room in Taipei.

“The first problem is how we deal with the waste,” he said.

Radiation decays in half-lives over time, but it takes centuries for spent fuel to return to uranium’s natural level of toxicity. As in the 32 other countries with nuclear reactors, Taiwan’s spent fuel is stored on site for decades. Only one country has completed a permanent repository for waste.Taiwan’s effort to store some low-level radioactive trash at a facility on the remote Orchid Island caused a national scandal in the 1980s.


The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage Site on Orchid Island, off Taiwan. Protests over the waste site contributed to nuclear plant closures.

“The reason why we stopped the operation of the nuclear power plants is because we do not have enough space to store nuclear waste,” Chang said. “That’s the reason why we’re trying to reach a nuclear-free homeland.”

Quitting nuclear power comes with tradeoffs. In Taiwan, electricity shortages quickly followed the closure of two working reactors at two older nuclear plants. For 104 days of 2017, the state-owned power company faced generating shortfalls, which crescendoed into an islandwide blackout on Aug. 15, 2017. Fearing more blackouts as air conditioners roared the next summer, the government restarted one of the two reactors, which still had years left on its operating license, in June 2018. That year, the number of days with insufficient power supply dropped to 29. In 2019, it was zero.

But that reactor’s license is now scheduled to expire in March, and the government has no plans for renewal.


The radioactive waste storage site has been a major employer on Orchid island.


Countries including China, the United Arab Emirates and Finland kept building nuclear reactors after Fukushima.

But with voters’ fears of nuclear Armageddon renewed, most of the world’s most powerful democracies abandoned nuclear energy. Japan promptly halted its reactors. South Korea set its own “nuclear-free homeland” target. And Germany led the way with the world’s most aggressive phaseout.

In the United States, on the other hand, utilities canceled all but two new reactors under construction and allowed natural gas, made cheap through fracking, to drive otherwise-functioning nuclear plants out of business.

This global trend marked a bet that the natural gas flooding the global market from fields in Texas, Qatar and Russia would remain abundant while we worked out enough of the kinks with batteries, renewables and efficiency to run a modern economy without fossil fuels. To date, the only large countries that have managed to decarbonize their power grids without nuclear energy are bestowed with either hydroelectric dams or easily accessed geothermal resources.

And even that supposes that the climate effects of natural gas fall in line with the rate of emission cuts needed to avoid catastrophic global warming ― and that the industries profiting off gas will willingly surrender the market to cleaner and equally capable rivals. It also prescribes the same long-term solution, renewables that require certain weather conditions and vast tracts of land, regardless of countries’ unique conditions.

As the floods, fires and freak storms of the past few years made climate change tangible, many countries began to reconsider the global rush away from the most efficient, zero-carbon energy source yet harnessed by humans. Once Russia’s invasion of Ukraine spurred a global energy crisis, the tides really turned. Japan fast-tracked restarting its reactors. South Korea elected a new president who campaigned on restoring the country’s atomic glory. The U.S. is now not only planning for new nuclear reactors, it also is helping to build them around the world. Even Germany reluctantly paused the decommissioning of its last three nuclear plants.

But Taiwan is holding firm against nuclear power. The country has built as many as five new coal-fired plants over the past few years. None was fitted with hardware to capture and store CO₂ before it enters the atmosphere. The country aims for coal to make up 30% of the energy mix in 2025, a drop from nearly 45% today. But 50% of power generation two years from now is supposed to come from liquefied natural gas, up from about 37% today.


Wind turbines dot the land near a construction site for new gas infrastructure in Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Taiwan, like most countries on the Pacific Rim, has no reserves of natural gas and keeps only about a week’s worth of the fuel in storage. Though it has plans to extend that stockpile to about two weeks in the years to come, the threat of a Chinese missile tests last year across the Taiwan Strait was enough to upend supplies as gas barges destined for Taiwan’s ports were rerouted.

The Tsai administration initially promised that renewables would offset the nuclear plants’ loss by providing 20% of Taiwan’s electricity by 2025, with offshore wind turbines doing the bulk of the work. With two years to go, wind provided less than 1% of Taiwan’s energy in the most recent statistics, while solar fell far short of cracking 3%. That almost certainly means the government will miss even its revised target of 15%.

Against that backdrop, Taiwan is going full-steam ahead toward becoming only the third country ever to successfully stop using nuclear power. And the biggest economy to do so, Italy, just elected a prime minister who supports bringing back atomic energy.

If its plan falters, Taiwan will sacrifice the cheap, reliable electricity that fostered the high-tech manufacturing industry ― and one that helps assure Taiwan’s de facto independence.

Taiwan Inc. Wants Atomic Energy


Alessandro Sossa certainly has not bought into the plan. Delta Electronics, the $25 billion tech conglomerate where he works as a project manager, sells batteries, solar equipment and tools to conserve energy. But an island with slightly more acreage than Maryland and a population 1½ times that of the Netherlands simply doesn’t have enough space for renewables alone to meet future energy demand, he said.

“Personally, I believe nuclear should definitely be part of the equation, too,” the Italian, a sharp dresser who wore his hair in a slicked-back, bleached mohawk, said during a visit to his employer’s Taipei headquarters. “A lot should be nuclear.”

The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., the world’s biggest and most important microchip maker, warned in its latest sustainability report that power outages threaten its business going forward, especially as demand for energy is set to increase throughout this decade.

“A meaningful percentage of Taiwan’s energy is simply used to power machines inside of chip-making facilities,” said Chris Miller, a Tufts University professor whose recent book “Chip War” tracks and maps the growing geopolitical tension over semiconductor supply chains. “So there’s a direct relationship between how the energy question is resolved and the island’s chip-making future.”


Left: Miin Chyou Wu, chairman of the board of directors of Macronix International Co. Ltd., gives a speech on a semiconductor plant tour at Hsinchu Science Park on Sept. 16 in Hsinchu, Taiwan. Taiwan's semiconductor manufacturing is crucial to supply chains, with companies like Apple, Nvidia and Qualcomm dependent on its exports. At right: A board with IC chips at the Macronix Exhibition Center in Hsinchu, Taiwan.

On a press tour of Macronix International’s sleek offices in the Taiwanese Silicon Valley city of Hsinchu one afternoon, the semiconductor giant’s billionaire founder, Miin Wu, ably deflected questions on hot-button issues. Pressed, for example, on whether his company’s sales of drones to China’s military fulfilled the Leninist adage that capitalists will sell their hangmen the rope, Wu just let out a hardy chuckle.

Asked about recent power outages, however, he grew serious. Power outages, he said, were a problem “more critical than anything else.”

Electricity shortfalls weren’t completely responsible for the increasingly frequent blackouts that have roiled Taiwan since 2017. At least one major outage last March was reportedly triggered by a utility employee flipping the wrong switch. The Ministry of Economic Affairs, which oversees the state-owned Taipower utility, a monopoly, blamed an aging power grid and said it was investing nearly $5 billion in upgrades to modernize the distribution network over the next decade.

When electricity demand has eclipsed the available power on the grid, microchip factories have generally been spared any supply cuts, a benefit of the industry’s geopolitical importance. But steelmakers and other big manufacturers complained in 2021 of repeated power cuts, and millions of Taiwanese households at a time have suffered outages in recent years.

Outages have quickly turned deadly. A blackout last March reportedly killed at least one person whose oxygen machine stopped working.

And some companies want to take energy production into their own hands. Formosa Plastics, a titan of Taiwanese industry, is considering building a small nuclear reactor at one of its overseas factories, possibly in the Philippines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the company’s plans. With time, the source said, the $18 billion company hoped Taiwan would change its laws and allow construction of similar reactors at domestic factories. The company did not respond to a request for comment.


A terminal for liquefied natural gas (LNG), one of Taiwan's biggest energy projects now, is seen on Nov. 24 in Taoyuan, Taiwan.


Grid operators must line up enough electricity generation to cover all potential demand scenarios. Taipower tends to err on the conservative side, keeping at least 10% more generation on standby than what’s needed to cover any losses or surges. With steady coal and gas shipments, that’s not a big problem. But the Chinese blockade that followed Pelosi’s visit forced barges carrying fuel destined for Taiwan to make detours or postpone the deliveries overall.

“We all make suggestions to the government that nuclear might be part of the solution,” Wu said.

“We all know there are new technologies available,” he added. “So hopefully that opinion will be accepted by the government.”

By new technologies, he meant small, modular reactors, essentially low-power fission engines like those powering naval vessels. Industry analysts believe so-called SMRs will prove cheaper and easier for Western utilities to build than conventional reactors and generally expect the machines to hit the market in the 2030s.

Taipower, which falls under the Ministry of Economic Affairs’ Energy Bureau, is studying the possibility of building SMRs in Taiwan, said Chern-Chyi Chen, the agency’s deputy minister.

“We’re hopeful for a solution,” he told me.

But he warned: “This is very much dependent on mainstream democracy.”

“If people do not like having a nuclear plant, the government cannot force them,” Chen said. “That’s the situation now.”
How Nuclear Became Synonymous With Tyranny

Taiwan’s contentious history eventually gave way to nuclear projects that were largely noncontroversial — at first.

For centuries, the island was a territorial chess piece for competing powers, from warring sides of the Chinese civil war to the imperial Japanese. Chinese imperial courts in the 18th century coined a Mandarin phrase about Taiwan: “Every three years an uprising, every five years a rebellion.”

In the mid-20th century, the Chinese nationalists who had just lost a civil war to the Communists fled to Taiwan and set about industrializing the country. The party, known as the Kuomintang, or KMT, had an issue:Industry requires lots of energy. Taiwan has virtually no coal, oil or natural gas of its own, and its electrical grid has no connections to other countries. Following a 1973 oil crisis, it became clear the country’s future growth hinged on dependable energy.

The Jinshan Nuclear Power Plant, based on a U.S. design, opened in 1978. The timing was fortuitous. A year later, the United States would deal Taiwan a blow by formally cutting off diplomatic ties as part of Washington’s newly normalized relations with Beijing. That same year, the partial accident at the nuclear plant on Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island effectively ended U.S. companies’ orders for new atomic power stations.


At left: A view of Kuosheng Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City on Nov. 10, 2021. At right: Taiwan's third nuclear power plant, Maanshan, is seen during a safety drill in Pingtung County on Sept. 13, 2013.

Not Taiwan. The island kept building nuclear reactors. In 1981, Taiwan opened its second, even bigger facility, the Guosheng Nuclear Power Plant. The third, Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant, the only station in southern Taiwan, came online in 1984.

In the late 1980s, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, hoping to maintain a relatively peaceful status quo on both sides of the strait, sabotaged Taiwan’s clandestine nuclear weapon program. But by that point, cheap electricity rates and pro-development policies had transformed Taiwan into a manufacturing powerhouse, with industrial exports surging sevenfold in the decades since the 1950s.

And though it did not yet matter in a world where global warming was not widely understood, 62% of Taiwan’s electricity at that point came from non-emitting sources, primarily nuclear reactors.

The government even came up with a solution for low-level radioactive waste, setting up a dump site on Orchid Island, a speck of volcanic rock roughly three hours by boat from Taiwan’s southeastern shore.

With Taiwan’s “economic miracle” came demands for a similar revolution in the country’s politics. Students and activists staged protests and marches for democracy. In 1986, around the time the KMT proposed Lungmen as a fourth nuclear plant, the Soviet Union’s catastrophe at the Chernobyl atomic station offered a poignant example of how dangerous fission could be in the hands of unaccountable, autocratic regimes.

If people do not like having a nuclear plant, the government cannot force them. That’s the situation now.
Chern-Chyi Chen, Taiwan's deputy economic minister

These activists wanted to remake Taiwan as a sovereign liberal democracy. To justify their claim to independence, some emphasized Taiwan’s Indigenous heritage. So when Orchid Island’s Indigenous population of Tao people, among the most culturally distinct of Taiwan’s 16 recognized tribes, began protesting the nuclear waste dump set up on their homeland, the issue quickly gained national notoriety.

Five months after Chernobyl, at a press conference at the Taipei Grand Hotel, the student activists illegally declared the formation of Taiwan’s first opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party. Ending atomic energy and rectifying centuries of Indigenous oppression became key planks in the party platform.

Despite this act of public defiance, the KMT opted against a violent crackdown. The final push against one-party rule came in 1989, when Cheng Nan-jung, a pro-democracy activist and magazine publisher, lit himself on fire in his office, hoping a suicide by immolation would shake the regime. It worked. The democratization process that followed would result in Taiwan’s first free election in 1996.

The KMT refashioned itself as a conservative party in the new democratic system and held on to power for the rest of the century. In 1999, it finally approved plans to build Lungmen. But democracy proved messy for the former authoritarians, and a schism within the party helped the Democratic Progressive Party win the presidency for the first time in 2000.

At that point, construction of new nuclear reactors had stalled since 1985. After peaking in 1987 at 56% ― one of the highest percentages in the world ― nuclear power’s share of Taiwan’s energy mix dropped to roughly 20% at the dawn of the millennium.

The Fight Over Lungmen


Under pressure from the U.S. to avoid stoking hostility with Beijing, in May 2000, newly elected President Chen Sui-Bien agreed to say no to four things: declaring independence, changing the national title from “Republic of China,” rewriting the constitution to change the definition of “Republic of China” and holding referendums on any of those issues. The move drew criticism from DPP activists.

The so-called “four no’s” agreement with the U.S. said nothing about abolishing nuclear energy. To appease party activists, Chen passed off the decision on Lungmen’s future to a legislative committee in Taiwan’s unicameral Parliament. The committee voted 9-6 against building Lungmen, with three absentees.

Soon after, Chen announced his opposition to Lungmen. Outraged, the KMT-majority legislature first held up the entire government’s budget, then challenged the decision at the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the court ruled the executive branch’s unilateral cancellation of Lungmen was unconstitutional. Construction commenced in 2003.


Wang Bohui, the retired former manager of the Lungmen nuclear power plant, has said the government's efforts to decommission the station before it came online defied what he called "the conscience of an engineer," noting that the plant is among the safest reactors in East Asia.

Early protests against the project were mostly small and local. At that time, the U.S., China, Europe, Japan and South Korea were on the cusp of a “nuclear renaissance,” with dozens of new reactors planned as part of an effort to curb dependence on fossil fuels. Building a new plant was by then so uncontroversial that Tsai, then the vice premier in the Chen administration, visited the plant sometime around 2006 and offered whatever help she could to finish the project. Promising deliveries of gravel and hundreds of workers, she told Wang Bohui, the supervisor at the plant, before leaving: “Your work is critical for Taiwan.”

In the 2008 election, the KMT vaulted back to power, with Ma Ying-jeou, the Harvard-educated former mayor of Taipei, becoming the new president.

Unfortunately for Ma, who supported nuclear power’s expansion, problems at Lungmen started multiplying. Building delays mounted. Then, in 2010, workers discovered aboriginal artifacts at the site, a reminder to some of the symbolic link between nuclear energy and Indigenous hardship.

The next year, the tsunami hit Japan’s Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant. Without a secondary backup to keep the radioactive fuel rods cool, the plant suffered the world’s worst meltdown accident since Chernobyl.

There was not so much as a single radiation burn. Japanese officials traced just one death ― an emergency worker who died of lung cancer a decade after the incident ― back to radiation exposure. But the accident sent a shockwave around the world, apparently convincing governments from Sacramento to Berlin to Seoul that nuclear power posed a more urgent risk than global warming.

Work on Lungmen didn’t stop overnight. Once again, nuclear power was swept up in Taiwan’s partisan politics.


Ma Ying-jeou, the former president of Taiwan, ended up shuttering Lungmen after a popular activist's hunger strike.

Ma had come to power promising closer ties with fast-growing China. In 2014, on the eve of signing a new trade agreement with the mainland, students stormed the Parliament. Fearing the pact was a precursor to annexation by Beijing, the protesters, chanting the slogan “My country, mine to save,” occupied the Legislative Building for a month before Ma sent in police. The police violently beat demonstrators, stoking support, even among some members of the Nationalist Party, known as the Kuomintang, for what became known as the Sunflower Movement. Shortly afterward, Ma backed down.

Around the same time, Lin Yi-Hsiung, a high-profile activist politician and lawyer, went on a hunger strike to protest Lungmen. Lin, a founding member of the Democratic Progressive Party, whose mother and two young daughters were allegedly murdered by the regime in 1980, captivated a nation that had seen before how one activist’s physical sacrifice could effect change. Two weeks after Lin stopped eating, Ma shuttered Lungmen.

“You have to understand, Mr. Lin has been deified. He’s been treated like a god. Whatever he says, people have to follow,” Ma said one afternoon in an interview at his foundation’s office in a corporate tower in Taipei.

“The reason why I mothballed the nuclear power plant was precisely because I wanted to avoid the forthcoming clash between the people,” he said. Asked if by “clash” he meant an election loss for his party, he said yes.

Lin Yi-hsiung, former chairman of the main opposition Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan, joins hands with protesters outside Parliament in Taipei on April 10, 2015. Hundreds of pro-Taiwan independence activists rallied to mark the first anniversary of the student-led Sunflower Movement.

Tsai won the presidency in 2016. At first, her Cabinet dithered on the nuclear question, with one high-ranking official flip-flopping in public statements on whether to bring back shuttered reactors. Hoping to avert blackouts, the new administration quietly restarted two reactors at Taiwan’s second and third nuclear power stations.

But Tsai had campaigned on eliminating nuclear energy. Her party was filled with vehemently anti-nuclear activists. And the public perceived atomic power as a bigger issue than it actually was. A recent survey conducted by National Taiwan University’s Risk Society and Policy Research Center had found that 44% of Taiwanese believed the country still generated most of its electricity from fission, even though nuclear power made up less than 10% of the power mix.

With her DPP controlling a majority in the legislature, she approved changes to Taiwan’s bedrock electricity law, codifying a phaseout of nuclear reactors. Before long, her government actually removed the fuel rods from Lungmen’s reactors and sent the uranium out of the country.

The rest of the phaseout was intended to be gradual. When each remaining reactor’s license expired, the government would decline to renew the operating permits. It may sound simple, but due to the robust international regulation of atomic power, that process would be difficult to reverse and would automatically prompt decommissioning. So it’s not as though some future pro-nuclear presidency could flip a switch and bring the plants back online.

In November 2018, Taiwanese voters went to the polls to decide on a series of ballot measures asking whether the government should overturn the Tsai administration’s nuclear ban and continue building more coal-fired generators. The results showed support for keeping nuclear power and halting the new coal plants. Critics dismissed the results, arguing that the nuclear question in particular was confusingly worded. Either way, the votes did not require the government to alter its policy.

Unbowed, the Tsai administration shuttered the only reactor left at the Jinshan plant, Taiwan’s first nuclear plant, the next year. The final reactors were slated to close in 2025, the year after Tsai would be term-limited out of office.

In the meantime, Taiwan opened another coal-fired generator. Then another. And another after that. Drought made the hydroelectric stations nestled in the island’s central mountains less dependable. Installing enough solar and wind energy projects to make up the difference proved increasingly difficult as farmers and fishers claimed that photovoltaic panels and turbines were devouring vital cropland and fisheries. New gas-fired plants were under construction, but their future depended on increasing the supply of fuel to burn.


Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen inspects an algae reef zone near the Datan Power Plant at the coast of the Guanyin District in Taoyuan on Nov. 25, 2021.


The algae reef zone inspected by Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen on Nov. 25, 2021, includes wind turbines.


In December 2021, Taiwan held another set of referendums on whether to restart construction at Lungmen and whether to continue work on a $2 billion natural gas import terminal atop an 7,000-year-old, ecologically sensitive algal reef. Tsai had campaigned against both ballot measures and played them off each other, claiming that a rejection of the new gas infrastructure might force her administration to continue using nuclear power for longer.

Voters rejected the proposal to complete work on the fourth nuclear power plant ― and narrowly approved moving forward on the liquefied natural gas terminal.

Ma watched the debate closely. Wearing a T-shirt featuring a polar bear and the words “Nuclear can help” in English, Ma, 72, seemed more like an elder statesman in the twilight of his career than a former head of state who just eight years ago held a historic summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping. But his post-presidency hasn’t tempered his penchant for political gossip.

“Just recently, when our president talked to the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Dr. Lee Yuan-tseh, the Nobel winner asked the president: ‘If you do this, what will happen in 2025?’” Ma said, recalling a conversation about Tsai’s energy policy. “Her answer was really shocking. She said, ‘Well, my term ends in 2024, so anything after that, I don’t know. I won’t be responsible.’”

(Lee did not respond to an email requesting comment.)

Ma twice called Tsai’s approach to energy “stupid.”

“The current government’s policy to develop renewable energy to replace nuclear power is, I think, the most stupid policy in the world. No country has done that. Why? Because nuclear power is considered green energy already,” he said. “We should use renewable energy to replace coal or natural gas. But not nuclear. More and more countries now understand that.”


Demonstrators display a picture of nuclear waste stockpiled on Orchid Island during an anti-nuclear-power demonstration in Taipei on March 11, 2012. Thousands of people chanted anti-nuclear slogans as they marched through downtown Taipei demanding that the government shut down its three nuclear power plants in operation and halt construction on a fourth.

Space For Waste

Whether it’s rods of cycled uranium pellets that can remain hot for years or low-level contaminated materials like hazmat suits and safety gloves, opponents of nuclear power have long listed radioactive waste as a top reason for mothballing reactors.

Spent nuclear fuel takes thousands of years’ worth of half-lives to decay back to the radioactive levels of the originally mined uranium. And given that the spent fuel is safely stored at power plants, few countries have even tried to build permanent waste solutions.

But that is beginning to change. Finland has begun entombing spent nuclear fuel in shafts dug 1,300 feet into the bedrock of an island on the Nordic nation’s southwest coast. When the facility called Onkalo opens this year, it will be the world’s first final disposal site.

Sweden, which also gets much of its electricity from fission, plans to construct a similar site just across the Gulf of Bothnia.

France, whose swift midcentury reactor-building spree famously decarbonized much of its grid in an astounding 15 years, is working on its own storage site.

In the 45 years since Taiwan opened its first nuclear plant, the country has produced nearly 23,000 spent-fuel assemblies, each of which contains 81 rods filled like a Pez dispenser with candy-sized pellets of enriched uranium.

Compare that to the U.S., whose fleet of more than 90 reactors, down from a peak of 119, is still far bigger than any other country. From 1968 to 2017, the U.S. produced roughly 280,000 spent-fuel assemblies.

That may sound like a lot, but it could all fit on a single football field stacked 10 yards high, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, and that’s including all the spent fuel generated since the 1950s.

A single coal-fired power plant in Puerto Rico, by contrast, produced an open-air ash pile several stories high. Like nuclear waste, ash is generally stored on site at power plants in large pools or heaps. But unlike highly regulated atomic stations, coal ash frequently leaches into waterways. While nuclear waste takes longer than a single lifespan to become less toxic, the arsenic and mercury concentrated in coal ash never become less deadly.

All the spent fuel generated since the 1950s could fit on a single football field stacked 10 yards high, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Solar panels and wind turbines don’t exude waste when producing electricity, but the devices don’t last long, and they’re piling up fast. By 2050, the U.S. and China could have a combined 30 million metric tons of trashed solar equipment ― roughly twice the total volume of garbage New York City produces every year. Wind turbine blades, which cannot be recycled in many cases, are stacking up in landfills, with thousands of aging machines scheduled for demolition across the U.S. and Europe just this decade.

In the best-case scenario, all that trash could end up recycled. It’s controversial, but coal ash has made its way into some building materials, to varying degrees of approval from environmentalists. And there simply isn’t enough lithium, cobalt and copper in the world to not recycle old solar panels, batteries and electric car parts.

Nuclear waste can also be recycled. Spent fuel still contains 95% of its energy once it comes out of a reactor, which is why it stays so radioactive for so long. Reprocessing waste into usable fuel is a costly and complex endeavor, which is why only a few countries, such as France, the United Kingdom and Japan, actually recycle their nuclear fuel.

Another drawback: There’s a thin line between recycling waste and enriching weapon-grade radioactive materials. Taiwan had tried to develop an atomic bomb only to have the CIA sabotage the effort in a bid to avoid war breaking out with the nuclear-armed mainland. And though the country stored its spent fuel at power plants like every other nation with commercial reactors, Taiwan also generated roughly 200,000 drums of low-level radioactive waste. From 1982 to 1996, a total of 97,672 of those drums were sent to Orchid Island.

Working with environmentalists who opposed nuclear energy, Indigenous activists from the Tao tribe fought to stop the shipments. The movement cast the anti-nuclear struggle in Taiwan as part of a familiar narrative, in which the atomic industry’s pollution, among other industrial waste streams, ends up in remote places where marginalized minorities live.

What happened on Orchid Island haunts even those who acknowledge the benefits of nuclear energy. It’s a common counter-argument against keeping reactors going.

At a bar serving homemade kombucha and playing experimental ambient and house music one Saturday night in Taipei’s Wanhua district, I found myself in two separate conversations with self-described undecideds on the question of nuclear power in Taiwan. Unprompted, each of them volunteered the waste issue on Orchid Island as an insurmountable hurdle to future reactors.

So I decided to go see the place for myself.


The coast of Orchid Island in November 2022. Storage of nuclear waste on the island has drawn protests.


The View From Lanyu

Reaching Orchid Island, known as Lanyu in Mandarin, is no simple jaunt.

Assuming you started your journey in Taipei, you need to take trains about four hours south and then east to reach Taitung, the beachy coastal town that awakens to the thunderous boom of Taiwanese Top Guns taking off in F-16s for morning practice runs.

From there, you could take a puddle jumper, but good luck getting one ― it’s a coin toss as to whether weather will cancel the flight, particularly in the rainy autumn. Absent wings, the only option is a cash-only ferry that boards via a gang plank from a concrete fishing jetty.

There’s as much cargo as there are travelers returning home from a weekend on the Taiwanese mainland. Every seatless cranny inside is stacked with boxes of vegetables, milk and live chickens, and the boat isn’t that big – it looks more like a narrow fishing vessel than the wide-berthed passenger ships that come to mind when you think of a ferry.

A view of the coast of Orchid Island on Nov. 22, 2022. It can take hours to reach the Taiwanese island from Taipei.


Watching from the ship’s open stern, it took only about 45 minutes for Taiwan’s mountainous silhouette to melt into the mauve mist on the horizon. Another nauseating two hours thrashing in the waves ended only as Orchid Island’s dramatic cliffs appeared, heralding dry land like ancient rock lighthouses.

The island is home to the Tao people, who are related to Indigenous Filipinos from nearby islands and make up most of the island’s nearly 5,100 residents. Their unique culture is everywhere. Banners bearing the Tao’s red-white-and-black octagonal crest adorn the low fences surrounding soggy green fields of taro, the local staple carbohydrate. Ornate canoes, called ipanitikas, hand-carved from single tree trunks, may outnumber automobiles. And though most new construction looks like modern Taiwanese architecture, there are still whole villages of homes built the traditional way, dug into the ground to weather monsoon winds.

The remoteness that preserved the Tao way of life also made it an attractive location to dump waste that no one else wanted anywhere near them.


A site of preserved semi-basement houses is seen next to a modern construction site on Orchid Island.

In the 1970s, construction crews arrived from Taiwan and built a complex on Lanyu’s southern tip of bland-looking single-story buildings behind a towering rock wall and barred front gates. Workers told Tao chiefs, many of whom did not speak fluent Mandarin, that the plant would be a fish cannery. But the cylindrical canisters that workers started moving there in 1982 actually contained low-level nuclear waste, which was stored in specially designed disposal units in what looks like painted-green dumpsters built in concrete cemetery rows.

After learning what was in the facility, the Tao people revolted, staging protests and blocking ships from unloading fresh radioactive cargo. The shipments ended in 1996. At one point, there were renewed fears when corrosion was discovered on some of the drums of waste. But Taipower resealed the containers.

Now the perennial but largely inactive fight has been over whether the waste can be moved elsewhere. But many residents on Orchid Island work at the facility. While some complain that Tao people are hired for lower-paid jobs than Han Taiwanese, the Taipower dump offers some of the best employment on the island. And locals who spent years at the facility put friendly and trustworthy faces to what was previously seen as a monstrous invader.


The traditional Tao residence is a semi-basement house, designed to withstand the monsoon season.

Crouched down to smoke a cigarette on the windy deck of the ferry, Chen Jun-xian, 40, a restaurant owner on Orchid Island’s more touristy east side, said “local people are 50-50 on supporting leaving the waste here.”

“The technology is getting better and better, so it’s going to be safer to store it,” Chen said. “And a lot of local people are actually helping to store it. They work for the plant.”

Over the past 20 years, at least 60 local residents have complained of thyroid problems, a symptom of radiation exposure, according to Syaman Lamuran, an Indigenous Tao who runs a hostel near the ferry dock. At least three people have gotten cancer that they blamed on the waste, he said.


Lomai, 47, says he became an environmental activist on Orchid Island after the tsunami-caused disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.

Born and raised here, a 47-year-old man who gave only his Indigenous given name, Lomai, said he joined Tao elders demonstrating against the waste plant when he was a teenager. But he became active in protests after the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

“That’s how I became aware that nuclear power is quite dangerous,” he said.

Then, about four years ago, a close friend who went to work for the facility died of cancer. Lomai blamed the waste.

“Since the waste has been put on Lanyu, the number of people getting cancer has risen,” he said over a breakfast of noodles in marinara sauce.

The number of cancer cases has increased in recent decades, according to a Taipei Times report citing unnamed medical records. But government studies have repeatedly shown that the cancer rate on Orchid Island is below the national average.

In 1980, two years before the nuclear waste dump opened on Orchid Island, Taiwan’s overall rate of cancer was 86 incidents per 100,000 people, climbing to 275 in 2008, according to government data. During that same period, Orchid Island saw the cancer rate of 35 cases per 100,000 people in 1980 increase to 149 in 2008.


Syaman Lamuran, an activist who's opposed to the nuclear power plant waste dump, said Taiwanese politicians think the Tao could just move off the island.

To some, those statements seem suspect. In decades past, officials from the Taiwanese government “put pressure” on Lamuran’s father, telling the prominent local chief, “Don’t say anything bad about the nuclear waste.”

Amid the protests in the 1980s, some Taiwanese politicians argued that the Tao should just move away from the island.

“We’re a small minority,” Lamuran said. “We even heard politicians say, ‘These people can just move and relocate to Taiwan.’”

These days, however, politicians largely ignore the issue altogether. Every few years, around election time, some candidates will tout plans to move the waste dump off Orchid Island.

“Once the election is finished, it just disappears,” said Jiang Yu-mei, 50, the owner of a hostel and restaurant on the west side of the small island. “Nobody talks about it anymore.”


At left: Jiang Yu-mei, 50, a hostel owner, dusts a portrait of herself at her home on Orchid Island. At right, Du Xiao-wan, 54, a painter who has lived on Orchid Island more than 30 years.

At left: Jiang Yu-mei, 50, a hostel owner, dusts a portrait of herself at her home on Orchid Island. At right, Du Xiao-wan, 54, a painter who has lived on Orchid Island more than 30 years.

Nobody, except maybe Du Xiao-wan.

The 54-year-old painter moved to Orchid Island after meeting her husband, who is Tao, more than 30 years ago. She’s ethnically Han, but her children are half Tao and she always urged them to learn the language and speak it with their grandmother. Her husband recently retired after a career spent working at the waste storage facility. She painted murals of traditional Tao scenes on the rock wall in front of the site and across the island.

She’d like to see the waste go. But she sees it largely as a settled issue at this point. What worries her, she said, is that the waste conflict has been used to justify shutting down Taiwan’s atomic reactors.

“It’s some of the cleanest power that we have and the safest thing until we develop nuclear fusion,” Du said, picking at a pan of roasted chicken under a tent of tarps by the waterfront one evening. “If we abandon nuclear power plants, it means we use more coal and gas, and it really destroys the climate.”

Taiwan, she said, “was not suitable for only using wind power or solar power.”

“We only have strong winds during the winter and autumn,” she said as a gust crinkled the creases out of the tarps she sat under. “And the solar panels use too much land.”

The next day, a rain storm swept in, canceling the flight back and almost halting the afternoon ferry, too. Thanks to Dramamine, I made it back on the final ferry with the steamed taro bun I ate for breakfast still in my stomach.

Environmentalist Hsu Hsin-hsin works for Clean Air Taichung, a non-governmental organization, in Taipei, Taiwan. She said she is opposed to nuclear power plants but recognizes that coal-fired plants contribute to the air pollution that affects the health of her children and her neighbors' children.

While Nuclear Idles, New Fossil Fuel Plants Rise


Back in Taipei two days later, I met Hsu Hsin-hsin at the Legislature Building. With a prim bob of black hair and sea-green glasses, Hsu was an environmentalist and congressional staffer for the New Power Party, a minor progressive party. She had been living in Taichung, the industrial hub on Taiwan’s west coast, for a few years when she realized something was wrong. Her two kids, now in college, were constantly sneezing and sniffling. She might have brushed it off as allergies, but neighbors’ children had even worse symptoms.

“My friends’ kids have nosebleeds whenever they wake up,” Hsu said. “It doesn’t matter how much medicine they take.”

The problem, she said, was the air. Taichung’s coal-fired forges, factories and power plants spew tiny pollution particles into the air that easily penetrate cloth masks and lodge in lungs, where, over time, a growing body of peer-reviewed research has shown they trigger a range of diseases, from cancer and heart failure to erectile dysfunction and dementia.

Gas-fired plants produce similar air pollution, albeit less of it. Nuclear reactors generate none. Still, when asked if she supported the phaseout of nuclear energy, Hsu answered yes, noting that she is an environmentalist and she opposes creating more radioactive waste.

“The goal has been a no-nuclear homeland, so we have to use natural gas while we transition to 100% renewable energy,” Hsu said.


Construction is underway Nov. 24 on part of a new natural gas power plant in Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Asked which countries she considered a model for decarbonizing without nuclear energy, she named two: Finland and Sweden. She hadn’t realized the Nordic nations were among Europe’s most enthusiastic users of fission energy.

Still, she said pro-nuclear elements in Taiwanese politics were hypocrites. The mayor of Taipei, for example, had been a vocal supporter of nuclear power as a means of cutting deadly air pollution. But the capital city wasn’t exactly welcoming new reactors within its limits either.

So what could get built?

On the shore of Changhua County, on Taiwan’s west coast, offshore wind turbines rose from the glimmering sea. But the project was behind schedule, and, when I visited one late afternoon, the blades were motionless and a fisher I asked about them replied only with a grimace.

At the Taitung train station, on Taiwan’s east coast, solar panels served mostly as awnings for diesel taxis awaiting customers in the autumn rain.

Hydroelectric stations were struggling to keep up with demand in an increasingly drought-parched part of the world, and there were no major new dams in the works. Power plants built to run on waste wood or biodiesel remained few and far between. Promising as they seem in theory, technologies to harness energy from the Earth’s molten core or the ocean’s waves and tides were still in their infancy.

In the past six years, nearly as many new coal-fired units were opened. These coal generators were more efficient: Coal’s share of Taiwan’s carbon emissions fell from about 59% in 2010 to a little over 56% in 2020, according to the Oxford University-affiliated Our World in Data. But that percentage was still higher than in 2000, when the fuel produced 49% of the country’s climate-changing pollution.

After leaving the Parliament building, photographer Annabelle Chih and I took the subway to the train station and boarded the high-speed rail to Taoyuan County, about an hour from Taipei. When we arrived, we hired a taxi and asked him to take us to the construction site for the natural gas terminal.


A wind turbine rises behind a construction site for a natural gas power plant in Taoyuan, Taiwan.

The cabbie didn’t know where to go. But after 20 minutes of driving, we came upon a giant industrial project underway right by the shore. We figured it had to be the terminal, but I didn’t see the bulbous pair of cylindrical silos I expected. At the front gate, we read the sign describing the project. It was a new gas-fired power plant.

We eventually found the gas terminal, but guards at the front gate wouldn’t allow us to get anywhere close. So we drove to an abandoned factory several hundred yards away and ran up its concrete exterior stairway. From the fifth-floor landing, we could see the gas terminal on the shoreline. It looked small from such a distance.

Catching my breath, I turned to Annabelle and asked, “Do you really think this is going to be enough?”

Two days earlier, on Nov. 21, Japan’s trade ministry had put out a major warning. Virtually every drop of liquefied natural gas expected to hit the global market between now and 2026 was “sold out,” according to the agency’s survey of companies.

That same day, Qatar, a top exporter of natural gas, announced what Bloomberg called “one of the biggest LNG deals ever,” a $60 billion, 27-year contract.

The buyer? China.
15 Countries with the Largest Uranium Reserves in the World

Ramish Cheema

Insider Monkey
Fri, January 27, 2023 

The growth in the awareness of global warming and the risks of greenhouse gas emissions has spurred a shift towards renewable energy. Leading the charge is solar power, as harnessing the Sun's energy does not lead to harmful emissions that are generated from traditional power generation sources such as coal or oil fired power plants.

However, while wind and solar power both sound attractive on paper, in reality, the picture is different. In fact, a study by Stanford University believes that even if companies were to shift to 100% renewable energy, this shift will not automatically lead to 100% carbon free energy. Stanford states that solar panels actually end up overstating carbon emissions reduction estimates since they generate peak power in the afternoon - when most firms' generators are sitting idle. However, at night, companies source their electricity from the grid, which then ends up in greenhouse gas emissions. According to the university, if gas emissions are calculated annually, then a 100% shift to solar would reduce a firm's greenhouse footprint by 119%; however, if emissions are calculated hourly, the emissions are reduced by 66% only.

A policy paper from the Brookings Institute lays bare the fallacy of relying on solar and wind power for an emissions free future. It points out that since wind and solar power plants operate at peak capacity for only a fraction of the time, they have to be backed up by traditional coal or gas fired power plants. In fact, Brookings points out that due to this crucial drawback, it takes six solar plants and four wind power plants to generate enough power as a single coal fired plant. Puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

However, not all is lost in the quest for an emissions free future. As Brookings also shares, nuclear power provides a net benefit of four cents per kilowatt hour - the amount saved after the costs of setting up and operating a plant are factored into analysis. On the other hand, both wind and solar provide negative net benefits. A nuclear power plant also has the benefit of being able to run 90% of the time, since it is not reliant on peak wind or sunlight. The argument for nuclear is also bolstered by the Oxford University Press. According to OUP, nuclear is humanity's best option to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, as it shares that France is the best example of this since the French baseload electricity is almost entirely generated by nuclear. Baseload electricity is the minimum power that must be supplied to the grid, which makes solar and wind power unsuitable for power generation.

Nuclear energy also made an appearance at the World Economic Forum at Davos held this month. At the event, Oscar winning film director Oliver Stone promoted his new documentary Nuclear Now! Mr. Stone criticized the climate movement for overstating the dangers of nuclear energy and commented that:

And what they did was so destructive, because by now we would have 10,000 nuclear reactors built around the world and we would have set an example like France set for us, but no one ...followed France, or Sweden for that matter.'

A key argument by environmental activists against nuclear energy is the hazardous waste generated. The world's nuclear power plants run on fission, which involves splitting up uranium to generate heat. This also leads to radioactive byproducts, and the spent uranium (high level waste) has to be stored underground for decades to ensure that it is suitable for contact with the biosphere. However, nuclear fusion, which involves 'fusing' hydrogen atoms does not produce any waste, and important steps such as the Department of Energy's (DoE) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) being able to achieve a net energy positive fusion reaction in 2022 are underway for this crucial technology.


15 Countries with the Largest Uranium Reserves in the World

Our Methodology

We used data from a joint report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency to sift out the countries with the world's largest uranium resources. However, this isn't all there is to the nuclear sector. For instance, here's a list of the world's largest nuclear energy companies, and here's one about the most advanced countries in nuclear energy.
15 Countries with the Largest Uranium Reserves in the World
15. Denmark

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 114,000

Denmark is a Northern European country that is one of the most prosperous nations in the world with a GDP per capita of $69,273. The country is rich in natural resources, and it is also one of the world's largest exporters of crude oil. All of Denmark's uranium reserves are located in Greenland, and the mining firm Energy Transition Minerals Ltd (ASX:ETM.AX) is responsible for uranium exploration in the area. Greenland's main uranium deposits are in Kvanefjeld, thought to be the sixth largest uranium deposit in the world.
14. Czech Republic

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 119,200

The Czech Republic is a landlocked Central European country. Its uranium reserves stood at 119,200 tonnes as of 2019. These are assured reserves, and the speculative and inferred uranium reserves are much higher and stand at roughly 240,000 tonnes. The Czech Republic also has a long history of uranium mining, with the first activities taking place in 1858 for the glass and ink industry. State owned enterprise DIAMO is responsible for the bulk of the mining in the area.
13. Republic of Uzbekistan

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 132,300

The Republic of Uzbekistan is a Central Asian country with a GDP per capita of $9,478. The country is rich in natural resources and products such as gold and oil make up most of its exports. It is also a dominant player in global uranium production, as it was the world's fifth largest uranium producer in 2021. Uzbekistan's largest uranium mining company is the Navoi Mining and Metallurgy Combinat (NMMC), and most of its uranium is located in the Central Kyzylkum area.
12. Mongolia

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 143,500

Mongolia is an East Asian country that is also the largest landlocked country in the world without any border with a sea. Nearly all of its exports are of raw materials and commodities. Mongolia's uranium reserves are estimated to sit at 143,500 tons, and most deposits are located in four regions. However, no uranium is currently mined in Mongolia, and its deposits are owned by French and Japanese firms alongside the government.
11. Ukraine

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 186,900

Ukraine is the second largest European country in terms of landmass and one that also houses Europe's largest nuclear power plant. It also generates a large chunk of its electricity through nuclear power, which stood at 70 tWh in 2020. Ukraine's largest uranium mining company is the Vostochny Integrated Mining and Concentrating Plant (VostGOK), which is owned by the country's Fuel and Energy ministry.
10. Republic of India

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 195,900

The Republic of India is the second largest country in the world in terms of population and the third largest in terms of nominal GDP. India is also a nuclear power as it possesses the atomic bomb, and the country has 22 nuclear reactors with an installed capacity of 6,780 Megawatts. India's uranium reserves stand at 195,900 tonnes, and exploration and mining are carried out primarily by the government with little involvement from the private sector.
9. People's Republic of China

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 269,700

The People's Republic of China, or simply China or Mainland China, is the world's most populous nation and the largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. It is also the world's largest energy consumer and user, having produced 117 quadrillion BTUs of energy in 2018 and 6,523 terawatt-hours in 2019. Additionally, China is the world's second largest nuclear power producer after the United States. It operated 55 reactors with a capacity of 52,170 Megawatts in 2021. The China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) - both state owned, are responsible for producing uranium in the country.
8. Federative Republic of Brazil

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 276,800

The Federative Republic of Brazil is a South and Latin American country that is the most prosperous in the region and has a high GDP per capita of $18,396. Brazil leads the world when it comes to renewable power, but the bulk of this comes from hydroelectric power. The country has two nuclear reactors as of 2021, with a capacity of 1,884 Megawatts. The Brazilian government is the only player in the uranium mining industry, and it operates in the sector through Industrias Nucleares do Brasil (INB).
7. Republic of the Niger

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 439,400

The Republic of the Niger is a West African landlocked country that is also one of the poorest nations in the world. Its GDP per capita stood at $1,213 in 2018. The country relies primarily on mining for its exports, with coal forming a big chunk of its foreign exchange earnings. Additionally, the Republic of the Niger is also a major uranium mining player, and was the sixth largest uranium producer in 2021 after having outputted 2,248 tonnes. It has four uranium production companies, Somair, Cominak, Somina, and Imouraren, with the government holding more than 30% of ownership in all.
6. Republic of South Africa (RSA)

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 447,700

The Republic of South Africa (RSA) is one of the most prosperous nations in Africa, and the only country on the continent with a nuclear power plant. South Africa's nuclear power plant has two reactors capable of producing 1,854 Megawatts of electricity. The private sector is heavily involved in South African uranium mining, with players such as AngloGold Ashanti Limited (NYSE:AU), Harmony Gold Mining (NYSE:HMY), and Sibanye Stillwater Limited (NYSE:SBSW) either playing an important role or having had a significant presence in the sector.

5. Republic of Namibia

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 504,200

The Republic of Namibia is a Southern African country that gained independence from South Africa in 1990. The country was the world’s third largest producer of uranium, and the largest in Africa, in 2021. Several global uranium mining companies play a major role in the Namibian mining industry. These include the Rio Tinto Group (NYSE:RIO), Paladin Energy Ltd (OTCMKTS:PALAF), and the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC). Namibia produced 5,753 tonnes of Uranium in 2021.


4. Russian Federation

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 661,900

The Russian Federation, simply known as Russia, is the largest country in Europe in terms of landmass. Russia has some of the largest natural resources in the world and is known for exporting natural gas – which has become controversial due to its brutal invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Russia was the world’s seventh largest uranium producer and the fifth largest nuclear power generator in 20212. It operated 37 reactors capable of generating 27,727 Megawatts of electricity. The government finances uranium production, and all Russian mining operations are part of the State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM.


3. Canada

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 873,000

Canada is a North American country that is one of the most developed nations in the world, and a rare developed country that relies on commodities for its foreign exchange. Canada also has 19 nuclear reactors that are capable of producing 13,624 Megawatts of electricity which made up 20% of Canada’s power requirements in 2021. Canada was also the world’s fourth largest uranium producer in 2021, having churned out 4,693 tonnes of the fuel. Key Canadian uranium mining companies are Cameco Corporation (NYSE:CCJ) and the French government owned firm Orano SA.



2. Republic of Kazakhstan

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 969,200

The Republic of Kazakhstan is a transcontinental country located in Asia and Europe. The country’s vast oil and gas industry makes it a power player in Central Asian politics, with oil representing more than half of its exports. Kazakhstan does not use nuclear power for electricity; however, it is the world’s largest uranium producer as of 2021 after having produced 21,819 tonnes – higher than the next five countries combined. Key industry players are Kyzylkum LLP, Zarechnoye JSC, Inkai JV LL, Kazatomprom-SaUran LLP, JV Katco LLP, JV Akbastau JS, JV South Mining Chemical Company LLP (SMCC), and Volkovgeology JS.



1. Commonwealth of Australia

Uranium Reserves as of 2019 in tonnes: 2,049,400

The Commonwealth of Australia, or simply Australia, is an Oceanian country. Despite being the world’s second largest uranium producer in 2021 by having produced 4,192 tonnes, Australia does not have a nuclear power plant. The country’s Olympic Dam mine is the world’s largest known deposit of uranium, and key players in the uranium mining industry are BHP Group Limited (NYSE:BHP) and Rio Tinto Group (NYSE:RIO).

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Are A Game Changer For Clean Power

Sun, January 29, 2023 

For years, small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) have been teased as the next big thing in clean energy. They were promised to be the solution to safely and efficiently scaling nuclear energy and the catalyst that would bring the nuclear energy renaissance into full swing. But then they never arrived.

Small modular reactors: What is taking so long?” asked an Energy Monitor report released last Fall. While these next-generation reactors have been right around the corner for years, the strict rules and regulations around nuclear energy, and especially new and unproven models of nuclear reactors, present a lengthy and costly process for SMRs to graduate from the research and development phase to deployment and commercialization. There’s a reason that the only two SMRs in the world that are already up and running are in Russia and China, where authoritarianism cuts through all kinds of regulatory red tape.

But it looks like the rest of the world could finally be getting ready to launch SMRs debut on the global stage. In the United States, the news broke just last week that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has officially certified the design for what will be the nation’s very first SMR. The certification was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, meaning that companies interested in using the design can start applying now for a license to build. That license serves as “the final determination that the design is acceptable for use so it can't be legally challenged during the licensing process when someone applies to build and operate a nuclear power plant,” according to reporting from CBS News.

That’s the beauty of SMRs: the small models are designed to be manufactured off-site at a commercial scale, and assembled on site for more efficient nuclear energy deployment. This could fundamentally shift the role of nuclear power in the global energy mix. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear energy has been proven time and again to be safer than most other kinds of energy production. The real problem for the nuclear sector is that building new nuclear reactors is extremely expensive, thanks to all of those very necessary regulatory hurdles that ensure the safety of new builds. SMRs can avoid a lot of that expense through standardization.

This is a game changer. Not only would the wide-scale deployment of small modular nuclear reactors revitalize the United States’ declining nuclear industry, it would be a significant step forward in the global fight against catastrophic climate change. A statement from the U.S. Department of Energy this week said that the newly approved design "equips the nation with a new clean power source to help drive down" greenhouse gas emissions. The United States is the second-biggest greenhouse gas emitting country in the world, after China.

And the U.S. is just the latest nation to make a major breakthrough in SMR development and deployment. “Roughly 40 serious concepts are in development for the next generation of advanced nuclear reactors worldwide,” CBS reported last Friday. The vast majority of these reactors are still in development, in either the conceptual design phase or the basic and detailed design phases, according to figures from the International Energy Agency.



Development of small and medium-sized modular reactors around the world. (Source: Towards Safer and More Sustainable Ways for Exploiting Nuclear Power)

While SMRs present a major step forward for nuclear energy, they are just one part of what is potentially unfolding to be a worldwide reacceptance of nuclear energy. World leaders have been forced to reexamine the myriad benefits of nuclear power thanks to the energy crisis started by the Covid-29 pandemic and kicked into overdrive by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and a resulting energy war between Brussels and the Kremlin. While nuclear power never died in some key economies, the West is beginning to ramp up production in a big way.The Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act is keeping the momentum building for nuclear power in the U.S. Overseas, Europe has also taken big steps to make nuclear power eligible for funding earmarked for renewable energy. When SMRs hit the stage in earnet, it could be the tipping point toward a new nuclear era.

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

Cracking Under Pressure: Inside the Race to Fix France’s Nuclear Plants
 




Francois De Beaupuy
Sat, January 28, 2023 

(Bloomberg) -- Behind layers of security and a thick concrete wall, a team of welders work in shifts to fix the crippled Penly nuclear plant in northern France. Sweating under protective gear, they’re replacing cracked pipes in the emergency cooling system which protects against a reactor meltdown.

Each weld takes at least three days to complete, with workers often on their knees or backs to reach for the correct angle. Even in radiation suits, health regulations limit work in that environment to a maximum 40 hours a year.

The complicated procedures, replicated across sites this winter, have hampered the ability of Electricite de France SA to get its reactors back online after lengthy shutdowns.

Deadlines have slipped. The two Penly reactors were scheduled to be back online this month and next. Instead, EDF has been forced to delay the restarts to May and June.

“These are complex situations, in a noisy and radioactive environment,” Laurent Marquis, a manager at Altrad Group-Endel which is coordinating the repairs for EDF at Penly, said last month, before the restarts were pushed back. “Workers can sometimes only hold their position for just a few minutes before they need to be replaced.”

The power station, below a cliff on France’s northern coast, normally provides electricity for about 3.6 million households. Its two reactors have been, in effect, grounded by faulty plumbing — the same cracked pipes first discovered by EDF at another plant in late 2021. That reactor, at Civaux in central France, only came back online on Wednesday after extensive repairs.

The discoveries plunged the operator into a crisis with repercussions for all of Europe. EDF called it an “annus horribilis,” and from early May to late October, about half of its 56 reactors sat idle due to the repair and maintenance backlog.

It flipped France from Europe’s biggest electricity exporter into a net importer last year, just as the continent needed it more than ever. After gas imports from Russia dried up, energy prices soared, governments spent billions helping consumers with their bills and Europe was threatened with shortages and blackouts.

So far, Europe has avoided the worst-case scenario, thanks to efforts to conserve energy and a relatively mild winter that reduced heating demand.

But the crisis is far from over, and EDF needs to find a way to avoid a repeat next winter. That challenge — finding problems, fixing them, doing checks — is already a mammoth task, and it’s being compounded by financial issues and staff shortages.

“We’re not out of the woods in terms of security of supply,” said Nicolas Goldberg, a senior manager in charge of energy at Colombus Consulting in Paris. “Don't expect miracles this year, some outages will sometimes be prolonged as unexpected things can be found during maintenance.”

The trouble started when EDF’s Civaux-1 reactor — which was only commissioned just over two decades ago — was undergoing a 10-year inspection. Ultrasound machines found signs of defects near the elbow or bend on pipes in the cooling system that didn't fit the classic profile of thermal fatigue. The utility had no choice but to cut the 3-centimeter thick steel tubes to examine them, and was then confronted with a disturbing discovery.

A section of the pipe was damaged by so-called stress corrosion, a phenomenon that's well known in the oil and gas and other industries but extremely rare in the atomic sector. Suddenly, EDF was scrambling to find the cause of the unexpected faults.

From December 2021, EDF extended its checks and progressively halted more than a dozen units for lengthy inspections, only to find more signs of stress corrosion.

Reactors are regularly taken offline without any major impact; EDF typically shuts down about 40 of its reactors every year for anything from short-term refueling to a partial inspection or long-term maintenance. But the additional halts caused chaos.

Output from France’s nuclear plants — which typically represent about 70% of the country's electricity production — dropped to 279 terawatt-hours last year from about 361 TWh in 2021. The utility estimates it will recover to 300-330 TWh in 2023, but that still means France may keep importing power for a significant part of the year.

The lower output is expected to deliver a €32 billion ($35 billion) hit to its 2022 results, compounding the utility's financial problems. The French government, which already owns 90% of EDF, is trying to fully nationalize the company to help put it on a more secure footing.

In France, the controversy surrounding EDF led to a war of words between President Emmanuel Macron and Jean-Bernard Levy, who was EDF chief executive until late last year. Levy said government talk about closing reactors made it harder to hire, leaving the company short of key workers, something that Macron has called that an “unacceptable” excuse.

The president and many of EDF’s critics see the issues as proof the operator had been resting on its laurels, with its aging plants plagued by longer shutdowns and its new builds facing cost overruns and delays.

But for the French consumers and companies that rely on EDF’s power, the pressing problem right now is getting the country’s nuclear engine back up to speed.

Inside the 40-meter high Penly reactor buildings, that means cutting tens of meters of pipe, preparing spare parts ordered from Italy and checking their length. Fittings are tested to make sure they can support the installed tubes. And when the welding begins, ultrasound images are taken every night to ensure the next layer of metal in the repair can be added. Since finding corroded pipes at Civaux-1, EDF has been analyzing parts in a special laboratory.

“It’s a phenomenon that was unexpected, which means we didn’t entirely understand it,” said Julien Collet, deputy director general of France’s nuclear safety agency. “Immediately, you wondered about its magnitude, and whether other reactors are affected.”

By May, the utility had concluded that 16 of its reactors had pipes more prone to stress corrosion. Significantly, they were actually the group’s newest reactors, where the French nuclear plant builder Framatome — a unit of EDF — had modified the original Westinghouse Electric Co. design used for the 40 older units.

Among other changes, the new layout made four safety water injection lines more sinuous — more twists and bends — making them vulnerable. With winter and the threat of blackouts looming, firms working on repairs had to fly in extra workers to try to meet deadlines.

Framatome and Westinghouse brought in about 100 specialist welders from North America, on top of the 500 metal workers and engineers available locally. That was a “no-brainer, given the stakes,” Framatome CEO Bernard Fontana said at a parliamentary hearing in December.

At Civaux, EDF set up a designated workshop for welders to practise, according to Sebastien Le Jan, a team leader at Onet Technologies who oversaw repairs on the No. 1 reactor.

Onet had to poach teams from other sites and find volunteers willing to postpone holidays.

“Everyone knew that we had to succeed as soon as possible,” Le Jan said in an interview.

It wasn’t just a manpower issue. Tools had to be adapted to operate in tight spaces, with welders using mirrors to work on piping too close to walls, while scores of dossiers were compiled to secure regulatory approval to replace tubing in record time.

Similar scenes played out elsewhere including at Chooz and Cattenom in northeast France.

Of the dozen reactors where pipes were cut for checks, EDF found no sign of cracking in three of them, while two had cracks caused by welding defects where tiny portions of metal had been insufficiently melted.

But in the majority, EDF did find stress corrosion causing cracks as deep as 6 millimeters on pipes.

Under fire for the 2022 chaos, EDF is trying to get ahead of further potential problems.

It plans to replace emergency cooling system piping in seven reactors as a preventative measure during planned halts of 160 days, starting this spring. The aim is to avoid doing weeks of checks only to find the pipes need replacing anyway.

Having initially fallen behind schedule, EDF is confident it has the labor, spare parts and supply chains in place to complete the repairs in time for next winter. The company says it’s also improved its inspection equipment so that it won't need to cut more pipes to determine the size of new cracks.

Not everyone is convinced. EDF has a history of missed maintenance deadlines, which an external audit published in June blamed on inadequate management of data, staff shortfalls and inexperienced teams in charge of turnarounds.

The company is still trying to figure out the speed at which cracks progress through pipes once they appear, meaning it faces tighter, more frequent monitoring of its reactors. Future setbacks can’t be ruled out.

The plan to fix seven safety cooling systems in 2023 is “not the end of the story,” Cedric Lewandowski, EDF’s senior executive vice-president for nuclear and thermal production, said at a parliamentary hearing this month. “It’s possible that we have to carry long and complex works. I think that 2023, ’24 and ’25 will continue to entail issues related to the stress corrosion.”

If that caps nuclear output, that means less power for France, and less to export to Europe.

Compounding the pipe issues is the broader maintenance work needed on what’s an aging fleet. Most of EDF’s reactors were built from the late 70s to the mid-90s, and now require longer down time. The utility wants to coincide the corrosion repairs with the other halts to maintain production, Lewandowski said.

On top of that, the utility is still repairing 122 faulty welds at a new flagship reactor in Flamanville in Normandy, which it wants to commission in the first half of 2024. The project is already over a decade behind schedule, and about €10 billion over budget.

All of which raises significant questions for EDF and the French government. Macron, despite his initial reservation about the nuclear industry's future, decided last year to boost atomic output alongside swathes of renewable energy to curb reliance on fossil fuels. He’s also planning to pay €10 billion to fully nationalize the utility.

France is not alone; 12 years on from the Fukushima disaster in Japan, the world is shifting back toward atomic power as governments try to improve energy security after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Macron’s government wants to help EDF build six new large reactors and begin preparatory studies on another eight units by 2050.

But building 14 new reactors is “absolutely not within EDF’s reach with its current balance sheet,” said Celine Cherubin, a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service. Beyond the full nationalization, a more favorable regulation for EDF may still be needed to help it meet its investment needs, she said.

EDF is also trying to restore its technical credibility, coming up with a new version of the reactors it is building in the UK and France that have been dogged with cost overruns.

The bigger question is whether EDF and the government can now reverse the sense of decline in France’s nuclear industry.

“This nuclear fleet is a strength, it’s our independence,” Sophie Mourlon, head of the energy directorate at the Energy Transition Ministry, said at a nuclear conference in Paris in October. But when it’s not working properly, “it’s also our Achilles’ heel.”

--With assistance from Samuel Dodge and Patricia Suzara.





 

Federal regulators reject Diablo Canyon license renewal request from PG&E. What happens now?

Mackenzie Shuman
Wed, January 25, 2023 

Federal regulators on Tuesday rejected a request from PG&E that would have eased the utility company’s efforts to keep operating California’s last nuclear power plant longer.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sent the utility company a letter on Tuesday spelling out the steps it must take to keep operating Diablo Canyon Power Plant past 2025, when it’s scheduled to close.

PG&E originally applied for license renewal for Diablo Canyon in 2009 — only to withdraw and terminate that application in 2018 after announcing plans to close the San Luis Obispo County nuclear power plant and replace it with other forms of carbon-free energy.

In an October letter to the NRC, the utility company asked the agency to simply resume its review of its 2009 license renewal application.

The NRC denied that request in its letter on Tuesday, instead instructing PG&E to submit a new license renewal application for the power plant.

“This decision does not prohibit you from resubmitting your license renewal application under oath and affirmation, referencing information previously submitted, and providing any updated or new information to support the staff’s review,” the NRC said in its letter.


Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant owned by PG&E is scheduled to close in 2024 and 2025, but an effort is underway to extend the life of the plant.

U.S. Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Santa Barbara, indicated in a statement Wednesday that he was pleased with the NRC’s decision.

“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision this week reflects the need for thorough review before approving additional years of operation beyond its current license,” the Central Coast congressman said. “This ruling affirms that corners cannot be cut when it comes to nuclear safety.”

PG&E has told The Tribune it plans to submit a new application by the end of 2023 — just one year before one of Diablo Canyon’s twin reactors are slated to shut down.


Pictured here is the Unit 2 containment dome, a transmission line and the turbine building of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant owned by PG&E. The shutdown of the two units owned by PG&E is scheduled for 2024 and 2025.

PG&E seeks exemption from law to keep Diablo Canyon open

According to PG&E, the 2,200-megawatt Diablo Canyon Power Plant provides about 9% of the state’s total electricity supply.

Diablo Canyon’s unit 1 reactor license is set to expire on Nov. 2, 2024, while the license for the second unit would expire on Aug. 26, 2025. Without valid licenses, the reactors must shut down.

That means the NRC would have less than a year to review the new license renewal application before unit 1 must shut down. The application review process typically takes up to five years.

To keep the reactors operating past their expiration dates, PG&E has requested the NRC grant it an exemption from a federal law that states it must file license renewal applications more than five years before the license expires.

The law allows for a nuclear power plant to continue operating past its originally scheduled closure date if the NRC is still reviewing its license renewal application — as long as that application was filed more than five years before the expiration date.

Because PG&E is set to file its license renewal application for Diablo Canyon less than five years before its originally scheduled closure date, the law requires that the reactors must shut down as planned.

PG&E wants the NRC to grant it an exemption to that law so it can keep Diablo Canyon open and delivering electricity to the grid.

The utility company requested that exemption in the same October letter in which it asked the NRC to resume review of its 2009 application.

“The (NRC) staff is evaluating that exemption request and expects to provide a response in March 2023,” Tuesday’s letter read.


Steam is released from reactor No. 1 at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant at Avila Beach in a May 2000 file image.


Nuclear power plant must shut down as planned, groups argue

Whether Diablo Canyon Power Plant should stay open has long been a subject of debate among lawmakers and environmental groups.

A push by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California State Legislature led to the passage of Senate Bill 846 in September, allocating up to $1.4 billion to PG&E so it can keep the plant running through 2030.

That law was passed after the state failed to procure enough clean energy to meet rising demand.

Nonprofit groups San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Environmental Working Group and Friends of the Earth filed a petition with the NRC on Jan. 10, arguing that it would be unlawful for federal regulators to allow PG&E to keep Diablo Canyon operating while the agency reviews its license renewal application.

The National Environmental Protection Act “prohibits the (commission) from extending the Diablo Canyon license terms by any means, unless it first addresses the significant environmental impacts of operation during the extended term, including earthquake risks, impacts to marine life of Diablo Canyon’s outdated once-through cooling system,” the groups said in the petition, as well as “impacts of delaying or deferring license renewal-related maintenance and inspection measures in anticipation of shutdown.”

The NRC had not responded to the groups’ petition as of Wednesday.

In his statement Wednesday, Carbajal said that “public engagement is key as we embark on this next phase” of Diablo Canyon’s operation..

“When it comes to extending the lifespan of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, nothing is more important to me than ensuring that our community’s safety is not compromised in pursuit of this extension,” Carbajal continued, adding that he’s “urged our federal experts to keep the Central Coast directly in the loop when it comes to the next steps for renewing Diablo Canyon’s license.”

Brazil's central govt posts 54.1 billion reais surplus in 2022, first in 9 years


200 reais note are seen after Brazil's Central Bank issues the new note in Brasilia

Fri, January 27, 2023 

BRASILIA (Reuters) - Brazil's central government reported its first primary budget surplus in nine years, driven by record revenues, but which does not pave the way for continued fiscal improvement, Treasury data showed on Friday.

The central government, comprising Brazil's Treasury, central bank and Social Security, posted a 54.1 billion reais ($10.7 billion) budget surplus before interest payment in 2022. The last positive result was recorded in 2013.

It followed a 4.4 billion reais surplus in December, which came higher than the 2.8 billion reais expected in a Reuters poll.

The performance was widely expected, helped by record tax revenue from a more robust economy and generous dividends from state-run oil company Petrobras, which were boosted by surging commodity prices after the Ukraine war.

In 2022, the Brazilian economy surprised on the upside amid an improved job market, strong resumption of services and government stimulus measures on the eve of a presidential election.

Private economists polled weekly by the central bank expect 2022 GDP to rise 3%, from just 0.3% they had forecast when last year began.

Former President Jair Bolsonaro's team had been highlighting that the public accounts rebalancement was also due to liberal government reforms that have helped to increase private investment and reduce the unemployment rate.

In any case, the prospect was that the central government would again record a primary deficit this year, worsened after leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva secured Congress approval, even before taking office in January, for a multibillion reais spending package to meet welfare campaign promises.

Surging expenses led the primary deficit budgeted for 2023 to reach impressive 232 billion reais. The new Finance Minister Fernando Haddad said he would seek to cut it by more than half by boosting revenue and trimming expenditures.

($1 = 5.0783 reais)

(Reporting by Marcela Ayres; Editing by Mark Porter and Steven Grattan)

Booting Rep. Omar off House Foreign Affairs Committee is 'cancel culture,' says GOP Rep. Mace

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., said Friday it would be hypocritical for Republicans to boot Rep. Ilhan Omar D-Minn., from the House Foreign Affairs Committee over anti-Semitic comments, and said doing so amounts to a form of "cancel culture."

HER PRO PALESTINE /PRO BDS/ ANTI-ISLAMAPHOBIA COMMENTS ARE NOT ANTI-SEMITIC

"There's a First Amendment in this country. We don't have to agree with everything that members say," Mace said Friday when Fox News asked if she supported Speaker Kevin McCarthy's vow to block Omar from the committee.

"I think we have to be very careful about what we are as a constitutional republic," she said. "I am not a fan of Ilhan Omar. She's an anti-Semite. She's a bigot. She's a racist. She's a socialist. But that doesn't mean that we cancel people in this country. Republicans don't stand for cancel culture. And that's essentially what this is."

Mace indicate that there were a "handful" of Republicans who are aligned in her thinking.

Nancy Mace
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.

"I think it sets a very dangerous precedent. And you know, there's so much anti-Semitism in this country. We should be condemning it right and left as we always have, but there's also the First Amendment right to do that," she said.

ILHAN OMAR SAYS MCCARTHY LEAVING HER OFF AFRICA SUBCOMMITTEE IS 'RACIST, XENOPHOBIC'

"We're all talking about the Twitter files and conservatives being censored, you know, it's, it's, it seems pretty hypocritical if you ask me," Mace added.

Nancy Mace Congress Omnibus bill
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.

Mace said that a resolution to remove Omar was yet to be circulated, and she would wait to read it before making her final decision.

"So I'm going to read the resolution. We haven't seen it. I'm going to read it before I make that final decision next week. But we've been asking for it, and it hasn't been released to public yet," she said.

Ilhan Omar says McCarthy leaving her off Africa subcommittee is 'racist, xenophobic'


Lawrence Richard
FOX NEWS
Thu, January 26, 2023

In a new statement, Rep. Ilhan Omar is now accusing House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of being "racist" and "xenophobic" for removing her from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Omar, a member of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights, defended her position in a tweet saying she is "the only African-born" member.

"As the only African born, not being on the Africa subcommittee is not just an elimination of a unique voice but an elimination of all the voices that have never been heard on a committee on the continent," Omar wrote.

She added: "It’s racist, xenophobic and discriminatory."

SCHIFF, SWALWELL, OMAR RESPOND AFTER SPEAKER MCCARTHY KEEPS THEM OFF COMMITTEES: 'POLITICAL VENGEANCE'


A split photo of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.


Omar echoed these remarks during an appearance Sunday on MSNBC's "Yasmin Vossoughian Reports."

"I think it would be hypocritic [sic] for him to remove, you know, the first African born on subcommittee on Africa on the Foreign Affairs Committee, where I’ve had the opportunity to not only represent my constituents but the voice of so many people who have never had a voice on the Foreign Affairs Committee," Omar said.


Omar has previously described McCarthy's decision as a political stunt, a blow to the integrity of the democratic institution and a threat to national security.

HOUSE DEM LEADER PREDICTS 'BIPARTISAN' SUPPORT TO KEEP ILHAN OMAR ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

McCarthy has said he is removing Omar from the position as she has upset many of her colleagues in the past with controversial anti-Israel statements that highlighted antisemitic tropes.

She once said, "It's all about the Benjamins, baby" to explain why McCarthy criticized her for opposing the Jewish country. She also sparked backlash for a remark comparing the U.S. and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban.

McCarthy, as Speaker, has the authority to approve committee appointments offered by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.


Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-MN, outside the U.S. Capitol on January 26, 2023, in Washington, DC.

Republican members could offer a vote to keep Omar on the committee, and at least two Republicans have expressed support to keep her position.

Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., and Nancy Mace, R-SC., said they oppose removing her from the committee.

ILHAN OMAR'S LONG HISTORY OF CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS

In addition to Omar, McCarthy has rejected the appointments of Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, both Democrats from California, to the House Intelligence Committee.

"Kevin McCarthy just kicked me and @RepSwalwell off the Intelligence Committee," Schiff tweeted Tuesday. "This is petty, political payback for investigating Donald Trump."


From left, Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., conduct a news conference on being removed from committees assignments, in the Capitol Visitor Center on Wednesday, January 25, 2023.

Reps. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., center, Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., conduct a news conference on being removed from committees assignments, in the Capitol Visitor Center on Wednesday, January 25, 2023.

"If he thinks this will stop me, he will soon find out just how wrong he is. I will always defend our democracy," the Democrat added.

The Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights Subcommittee previously included Reps. Karen Bass, D-Calif., who was the Chairwoman in the 117th Congress, Christopher Smith, R-NJ., Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Greg Steube, R-Fla., Dean Phillips, D-Minn., Ami Bera, D-Calif., Young Kim, R-Calif., Ronny Jackson, R-TX., Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., and others.

McCarthy might have a math problem in blocking Omar from panel





Mychael Schnell
Thu, January 26, 2023

Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) vow to block Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from sitting on the House Foreign Affairs Committee has hit an early snag: He may not have the votes to do it.

Omar, one of three Muslims in Congress, has been a controversial figure on Capitol Hill for her sharp criticisms of the Israeli government and its human rights record. Republicans have said she’s crossed a line into antisemitism, and McCarthy’s case for booting her from Foreign Affairs rests on that accusation.

But McCarthy has a math problem to solve, one that could prove an early test of his ability to keep his narrow majority united and fulfill a long-running vow.

Democrats are rallying behind Omar, which could force GOP leaders to rely entirely on their own members if they’re to succeed.

“Thee’s already two Republicans that have indicated that they won’t vote to put her off, and I think others will come aboard also,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), the senior Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, who is lobbying Republicans on Omar’s behalf.

“So I don’t think it’s going to be a simple vote. I think that she has a good chance of staying.”

Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) said this week she’ll oppose the measure, calling McCarthy’s move “unprecedented” while citing her opposition to Democrats’ successful removal of GOP Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) and Paul Gosar (Ariz.) from committees in 2021.

“Two wrongs do not make a right,” she said in a statement. “As I spoke against it on the House floor two years ago, I will not support this charade again.”

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) has been similarly cool to the concept, also pointing to her criticism of the Greene and Gosar evictions under Democratic rule.

“I’m not going to be a hypocrite just because Republicans are in the majority now,” she told reporters Wednesday morning. “It’s not been a precedent in Congress to kick people off of their committees because of things that they say, even if you vehemently disagree with those things.”

Still, Mace said she’s withholding final judgment until the final resolution is released.

Adding to the mathematical headache, Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) said he will be “sidelined in Sarasota for several weeks” after falling 25 feet from a ladder on his property — denying Republicans an easy “yes” vote if the resolution hits the floor soon.

A wild card in the debate remains whether Democrats would vote unanimously to support Omar. The overwhelming majority are expected to do so, putting pressure on McCarthy to rally his own troops. But several Democrats aren’t showing their hands, including Reps. Josh Gottheimer (N.J.) and Jared Moskowitz (Fla.), two Jewish lawmakers who represent large Jewish constituencies.

Asked Wednesday if every Democrat would support Omar, Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar (Calif.) was coy, saying only that “it’s going to be a bipartisan vote to keep her on the committee.”

Omar hasn’t officially been recommended for the committee yet and a House vote has not been set.

For months, McCarthy has signaled he would block three Democrats from serving on certain committees should he win the gavel: Omar on Foreign Affairs, and Reps. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Eric Swalwell (Calif.) on the House Intelligence Committee.

That push began in 2021 after Democrats — and some Republicans — voted to remove Greene and Gosar from their committees as punishment for promoting violence against Democrats on social media.

McCarthy began his house-cleaning effort on Tuesday night when he blocked Schiff and Swalwell from the Intelligence panel, accusing the pair of abusing their positions at risk of national security. Because of the special rules governing the Intel panel, he was able to do so unilaterally.

The effort to block Omar from Foreign Affairs won’t be quite as easy, since it requires a vote of the full House.

Republicans are focusing on past comments from Omar that have been accused of being antisemitic and anti-Israel. In 2019, for instance, she tweeted that lawmaker support for Israel is “all about the Benjamins, baby” — a remark that sparked immediate condemnation from Democratic leaders and forced Omar to issue an apology.

More recently, she received widespread criticism for equating the U.S. and Israel with the Taliban and Hamas when it comes to human rights abuses.

“It would be odd to me that members would not support [the removal resolution] based upon her comments against Israel,” McCarthy said Tuesday night.

But Omar is defending her right to sit on the panel, arguing that she has already paid the price for her comments.

“I have addressed it, I’ve apologized,” the congresswoman told reporters on Wednesday.

As the debate evolves, Democrats are seeking to distinguish between their decision to remove Greene and Gosar in 2021, and the Republicans’ targeting of Omar and other Democrats, arguing that the violence promoted by the GOP lawmakers put them in a different league.

“Suggesting violence against other members, your colleagues, is a much more serious offense,” said Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.). “I think we start to go down a dangerous path when you start to remove members because you disagree with their policies.”

Democrats are also pointing to a separate episode in the last Congress involving Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who told a crowd in her district that sharing an elevator with Omar was alarming — until she saw that Omar “doesn’t have a backpack.”

The implication was that Omar must be a suicide bomber because of her faith, and Democrats demanded that McCarthy condemn the remarks — something he refused to do.

“Nothing. Not a word. Not a peep,” Meeks said.

Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also resisted efforts to have Boebert removed from her committees, infuriating liberals at the time.

“That’s assuming that all Muslims are terrorists, right?” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), another Muslim lawmaker, said Wednesday. “All of this is so incredibly frustrating.”

McCarthy and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the Foreign Affairs chairman, made their case for blocking Omar during a closed-door meeting with the House GOP conference Wednesday morning, when McCaul highlighted a number of Omar’s statements that have been cited as antisemitic.

“They went through ‘em,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who was initially undecided but opted to support the effort following the presentation, said afterward. “Because we need to remind people, this is what she said in the past.”

Other Republicans have remained mum on how they will vote, including Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), one of 11 Republicans who voted to boot Greene from her committees.

“We’ve got to have consistent rules that apply to everybody,” Fitzpatrick said Wednesday, adding that “we haven’t even seen anything yet.”

Meanwhile, Omar’s allies say they’re eager for the battle to reach the floor to get everyone on the record.

“I’m fully supportive of taking a vote — I think it’s important,” said Tlaib. “Because if we’re going to continue doing this over and over again, I want to see where everybody stands.”
 The Hill.
Asteroid's sudden flyby shows blind spot in planetary threat detection

"So by golly, we gotta find these asteroids."






Sun, January 29, 2023 
By Joey Roulette

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The discovery of an asteroid the size of a small shipping truck mere days before it passed Earth on Thursday, albeit one that posed no threat to humans, highlights a blind spot in our ability to predict those that could actually cause damage, astronomers say.

NASA for years has prioritized detecting asteroids much bigger and more existentially threatening than 2023 BU, the small space rock that streaked by 2,200 miles from the Earth's surface, closer than some satellites. If bound for Earth, it would have been pulverized in the atmosphere, with only small fragments possibly reaching land.

But 2023 BU sits on the smaller end of a size group, asteroids 5-to-50 meters in diameter, that also includes those as big as an Olympic swimming pool. Objects that size are difficult to detect until they wander much closer to Earth, complicating any efforts to brace for one that could impact a populated area.

The probability of an Earth impact by a space rock, called a meteor when it enters the atmosphere, of that size range is fairly low, scaling according to the asteroid's size: a 5-meter rock is estimated to target Earth once a year, and a 50-meter rock once every thousand years, according to NASA.

But with current capabilities, astronomers can't see when such a rock targets Earth until days prior.

"We don't know where most of the asteroids are that can cause local to regional devastation," said Terik Daly, a planetary scientist at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory.

The roughly 20-meter meteor that exploded in 2013 over Chelyabinsk, Russia is a once-every-100-years event, according to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It created a shockwave that shattered tens of thousands of windows and caused $33 million in damage, and no one saw it coming before it entered Earth's atmosphere.

Some astronomers consider relying only on statistical probabilities and estimates of asteroid populations an unnecessary risk, when improvements could be made to NASA's ability to detect them.

"How many natural hazards are there that we could actually do something about and prevent for a billion dollars? There's not many," said Daly, whose work focuses on defending Earth from hazardous asteroids.

AVOIDING A REALLY BAD DAY

One major upgrade to NASA's detection arsenal will be NEO Surveyor, a $1.2 billion telescope under development that will launch nearly a million miles from Earth and surveil a wide field of asteroids. It promises a significant advantage over today's ground-based telescopes that are hindered by daytime light and Earth's atmosphere.

That new telescope will help NASA meet a goal assigned by Congress in 2005: detect 90% of the total expected amount of asteroids bigger than 140 meters, or those big enough to destroy anything from a region to an entire continent.

"With Surveyor, we're really focusing on finding the one asteroid that could cause a really bad day for a lot of people," said Amy Mainzer, NEO Surveyor principal investigator. "But we're also tasked with getting good statistics on the smaller objects, down to about the size of the Chelyabinsk object."

NASA has fallen years behind on its congressional goal, which was ordered for completion by 2020. The agency proposed last year to cut the telescope's 2023 budget by three quarters and a two-year launch delay to 2028 "to support higher-priority missions" elsewhere in NASA's science portfolio.

Asteroid detection gained greater importance last year after NASA slammed a refrigerator-sized spacecraft into an asteroid to test its ability to knock a potentially hazardous space rock off a collision course with Earth.

The successful demonstration, called the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), affirmed for the first time a method of planetary defense.

"NEO Surveyor is of the utmost importance, especially now that we know from DART that we really can do something about it," Daly said.

"So by golly, we gotta find these asteroids."

(Reporting by Joey Roulette; Editing by Andrea Ricci)


A small asteroid gave Earth a close but safe shave Thursday night


A small asteroid swung past Earth Thursday night, in one of the closest flybys we've ever seen.

On January 21, 2023, Gennadiy Borisov, the same amateur astronomer who found the first interstellar comet, spotted a new asteroid flying towards our planet. Now named 2023 BU, this roughly 5-metre-wide space rock is one of 115 asteroids discovered so far this year that come reasonably close to our world. This particular near-Earth asteroid has earned a special distinction, though.

Based on the observations made by Borisov and other astronomers around the world, NASA's system for analyzing the impact threat of asteroids — Scout — found that it would be a safe pass, but an extremely close one!

"Scout quickly ruled out 2023 BU as an impactor, but despite the very few observations, it was nonetheless able to predict that the asteroid would make an extraordinarily close approach with Earth," Davide Farnocchia, the NASA JPL engineer who developed Scout, said in a press release. "In fact, this is one of the closest approaches by a known near-Earth object ever recorded."

Asteroid 2023 BU - orbit comparison
Asteroid 2023 BU - orbit comparison

These diagrams show the orbit of asteroid 2023 BU in relation to the Earth, the ring of geostationary satellites (green), and the orbit of the Moon (gray) — the top view from beyond the Moon's orbit, and the bottom from beyond geostationary orbit. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Scott Sutherland


At 7:27 p.m. EST on Thursday, January 26, 2023 BU passed over the southern tip of South America at an altitude of around 3,600 kilometres above the surface.

For a sense of scale, that's around 9 times farther away than the orbit of the International Space Station. However, it's also about one-tenth the distance to the ring of geostationary weather and communication satellites that circle the planet, and over 100 times closer than the Moon.

According to NASA, Earth's gravity affects every asteroid that comes close to the planet. 2023 BU is coming so close, though, that it will experience a significant change in its orbit around the Sun.

"Before encountering Earth, the asteroid's orbit around the Sun was roughly circular, approximating Earth's orbit, taking 359 days to complete its orbit about the Sun," the space agency said. "After its encounter, the asteroid's orbit will be more elongated, moving it out to about halfway between Earth's and Mars' orbits at its farthest point from the Sun. The asteroid will then complete one orbit every 425 days."

No risk from 2023 BU

Both NASA and the European Space Agency have gone on record saying that there was no threat of an impact from asteroid 2023 BU.

In fact, the discovery of this asteroid shows how far we've come in the field of planetary defence.

"2023 BU was discovered about a week ago. Although it doesn't seem like much warning, the advance detection of this very small — and safe — asteroid, shows just how much detection technologies are improving," the ESA said.

Spotted!!

As predicted, 2023 BU skimmed by Earth, right on schedule!

The predictions of its trajectory were so accurate that a robotic camera run by the Virtual Telescope Project picked up the tiny visitor during its closest pass.

This stands as another fantastic example of how far we've come with our ability to detect and track asteroids.

In November, astronomers spotted an even smaller object, a meteoroid less than a metre wide named 2022 WJ1, just three hours before it plunged into the atmosphere to burn up over Southwestern Ontario. The hunt for meteorites from this event is still ongoing.

Watch below: An asteroid burned up over Southwestern Ontario

Click here to view the video