SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Tom Clements, 803-834-3084
Nick Berning, 202-222-0748
The troubled plan by the Department of Energy (DOE) to use nuclear
fuel made from surplus plutonium was recently dealt a grave blow with
the loss of all reactors that had been expected to use the fuel.
Duke Energy Corporation has allowed its contract to use the
controversial mixed oxide fuel (MOX) in four Duke reactors in North and
South Carolina to lapse, throwing into question the survivability of a
program that has stumbled from one problem to another over the last
decade.
In its annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) on February 27, 2009, Duke revealed that the contract to use MOX
had "automatically terminated on December 1, 2008" after a failed
attempt to renegotiate the contract with Shaw AREVA MOX Services (MOX
Services), contracted by DOE to carry out the MOX program. Duke has
said it "is interested in receiving a future proposal from MOX Services
for the use of MOX fuel," but right now the planned use in the Catawba
and McGuire reactors has been terminated.
Due to this negative turn of events for the misguided and costly MOX
program, the public interest organization Friends of the Earth is again
calling for the program to be terminated once and for all.
"Given the lack of reactors to use the plutonium fuel and ongoing
problems over the last decade with this program, it's past time for
Congress to pull the plug and halt construction of the MOX plant at the
Savannah River Site," said Tom Clements, Southeastern Nuclear Campaign
Coordinator with Friends of the Earth in Columbia, South Carolina.
A DOE official has informed Friends of the Earth that DOE is
speaking with three utilities about possible MOX use and that Duke may
reenter into negotiations. It is believed that the Tennessee Valley
Authority could be interested, though, like other utilities, it would
have to conduct a lengthy MOX test to validate use of the fuel.
"The events around the loss of the Duke reactors should serve as a
red flag to other utilities that their participation in the troubled
plutonium program will be fraught with risks and obstacles," Clements
said.
Friends of the Earth and the Union of Concerned Scientists revealed
in August 2008 that a test of MOX fuel in Duke's Catawba-1 reactor had
failed due to abnormal fuel assembly performance and the that the "lead
test assemblies" (LTAs) were pulled from the reactor after only two of
the necessary three 18-month irradiation cycles. The failure of this
test, the groups claimed, left DOE without the required information
necessary to certify with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the
performance of the fuel, being tested for the first time with weapons
plutonium.
It is unknown what impact the failed LTA test has had on Duke's
decision to withdraw from the MOX program but DOE's lack of
guaranteeing a reliable schedule for MOX delivery, due to the failed
MOX test and continuous delays in the project, have likely caused Duke
to reconsider use of the fuel. Such fuel made from high-quality weapons
plutonium has never been used before.
The test MOX fuel had been manufactured with U.S. weapons plutonium
shipped from the Los Alamos National Laboratory via Charleston, S.C. to
a now-closed French MOX plant (Cadarche), making a repeat of the
54-month irradiation test difficult. Irradiated fuel pins were
evidently removed from failed MOX test assembles stored in the Catawba
spent fuel pool and shipped to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for
testing. Information on analysis of the test fuel is not available. No
matter which reactors use MOX, the test will have to be repeated for
three 18-month cycles, causing further uncertainty, delays, and cost
escalation.
Despite the lack of reactors to use the plutonium fuel, MOX Services
is continuing to use taxpayer dollars to construct a $5-billion factory
at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina to make the fuel
from 34 metric tons of "surplus" weapons-grade plutonium.
On March 4, 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) release
a report entitled Department of Energy: Contract and Project Management
Concerns at the National Nuclear Security Administration and Office of
Environmental Management (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-406T),
which underscores potential problems in reliably delivering MOX fuel to
a utility. Concerning the MOX plant at SRS, GAO stated that "the
project's schedule, in addition to other problems, does not adhere to a
key practice that is fundamental to having a sufficiently reliable
schedule-specifically, MFFF project staff have not conducted a risk
analysis on their current schedule using statistical techniques. ...
Consequently, NNSA cannot adequately state its level of confidence in
meeting the MFFF project's completion date, and NNSA's schedule for the
project therefore may not be reliable." Thus, utilities are nervous if
their need for a reliable schedule for fuel delivery can be met.
Friends of the Earth has also been informed by a DOE official that
DOE offered Duke conventional enriched uranium (LEU) fuel if it could
not meet a MOX delivery schedule but negotiations for that LEU fuel did
not produce positive results before the Duke MOX contract expired on
December 1.
Notes:
Duke Energy Corporation "Form 10-K" annual report filed with the SEC, Feb. 27, 2009
https://idea.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326160/000119312509041096/d10k.htm
"In 1999, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a contract with Shaw
AREVA MOX Services (MOX Services; formerly Duke COGEMA Stone &
Webster, LLC) to purchase mixed-oxide fuel for use in the McGuire and
Catawba nuclear reactors. Under this contract, beginning in 2007, MOX
Services would fabricate batches of mixed-oxide fuel from stockpiles of
plutonium derived from surplus weapons at a facility under construction
at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River site in Aiken,
South Carolina. Mixed oxide fuel is similar to conventional uranium
fuel. Following review and approval by the NRC, four MOX fuel lead
assemblies, fabricated in France, were irradiated for two fuel cycles
(approximately three years) in Unit 1 of the Catawba Nuclear Station.
In 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas and MOX Services engaged in discussions
to renegotiate the terms of the contract prior to its expiration on
December 1, 2008. The parties were unable to reach agreement and the
contract automatically terminated on December 1, 2008. Duke Energy
Carolinas has communicated to MOX Services that it continues to support
the objectives of the surplus weapons disposition program and is
interested in receiving a future proposal from MOX Services for the use
of MOX fuel." (page 14)
FOE-UCS news release on Failed MOX test in Dukes Catawba Reactor, August 4, 2008:
https://www.foe.org/nuclear-fuel-test-failure-raises-concerns
and
https://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/nuclear-fuel-test-failure-0140....
UCS-FOE 4-page Backgrounder of August 4, 2008 on Failed MOX Test in
Duke's Catawba Reactor - "AREVA Fuel Assembly Problems Doom DOE
Plutonium Fuel Test" - available on request
For Duke's June 10, 2008 report to the NRC, with first public
mention of failed MOX test, go to the NRC's ADAMS digital library and
search for "ML081650181" at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html.
For an April 2008 AREVA presentation that discusses the abnormal
fuel assembly growth problem, go to NRC's ADAMS digital library and
search for "ML081300390."
Shaw Areva MOX Services October 18, 2008 solicitation "To All
Nuclear Utilities in the USA" for more reactors to use MOX available on
request.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400Even Trump's mail-in ballot was not enough to keep Democrat Emily Gregory from winning the seat over Republican Jon Maples in a district swing of more than 13 points.
A Democrat in Florida running to win a state house seat in the Palm Beach district that includes US President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate was declared the winner in a special election on Tuesday night, defeating the Trump-endorsed Republican in yet another powerful rebuke to the running of the country by the president and his party.
Emily Gregory flipped Florida's House District 87, defeating Republican Jon Maples, who Trump loudly endorsed and cast his vote for personally via mail-in ballot—something he wants to bar other voters nationwide from being able to do. Trump said on Monday that Maples, a financial planner who previously held office at the municipal level, was the choice of "so many of my Palm Beach County friends.”
But with almost all votes counted late Tuesday night, the Associated Press reported Gregory led by 2.4 percentage points, or 797 votes. In 2024, the district went to Republicans by 11 points.
"Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”
Political strategist Sawyer Hackett named the obvious implication by saying, at least through November of 2026, "Trump will be represented by a Democrat in the Florida legislature."
“I think it demonstrates where the Florida voter is,” Gregory, who runs a fitness center for postpartum mothers, told Politico in an interview following her victory. “They want someone who is focused on solutions and the issues and not focused on the noise.”
“If Mar-a-Lago is vulnerable, imagine what’s possible this November,” said Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, in response to the victory. Williams noted that Gregory's win was the 29th seat that Democrats have flipped from GOP control since Trump returned to office last year.
“Gas prices are spiking, grocery costs are up, and families can’t get by," she said. "It’s clear voters at the polls are fed up with Republicans. A Trump +11 district in his own backyard shouldn’t be in play for Democrats, but tonight proves Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”
"These massive facilities are sucking up precious water resources, paving over farmland, driving climate change, and disrupting the fabric of communities," said one supporter of the new legislation.
Two of the leading progressives in the US Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, announced legislation on Wednesday that would impose a nationwide moratorium on the construction of new artificial intelligence data centers amid mounting concerns over their insatiable consumption of power and water resources, impacts on the climate, and other harms.
Sanders' (I-Vt.) office said in a press release announcing the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act that the construction pause would remain in effect "until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment."
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are set to formally introduce their legislation at a press conference on Wednesday at 4 pm ET.
Food & Water Watch (FWW), which last year became the first national organization in the US to call for a total moratorium on the approval of new AI data centers, celebrated the first-of-its-kind bill and called on other members of Congress to "move quickly to sponsor, champion, and pass" it. FWW's groundbreaking call for a national AI data center moratorium was later echoed by hundreds of advocacy organizations at the state and national levels.
“We need a halt to the explosive growth of new AI data center construction now, because political and community leaders across the country have been caught completely off guard by this aggressive, profit-hungry industry," Mitch Jones, FWW's managing director of policy and litigation, said in a statement Wednesday. "It has yet to be determined if—not how—the industry can ever operate in a manner that sufficiently protects people and society from the profusion of inherent hazards and harms that data centers bring wherever they appear."
“Long before the recent spike in global oil prices, Americans throughout the country were dealing with skyrocketing electricity rates due to the egregious consumption and jolting grid impacts levied by Big Tech’s AI data centers," Jones added. "Meanwhile, these massive facilities are sucking up precious water resources, paving over farmland, driving climate change, and disrupting the fabric of communities. We mustn’t allow another unchecked Silicon Valley scheme to profit off our backs while sticking us with the bill."
In a detailed report released last week, titled The Urgent Case Against Data Centers, FWW pointed to some of the "documented harms caused by AI and data centers," including:
Those harms have fueled massive grassroots opposition to AI data centers, with communities organizing to prevent construction in their backyards. One report estimates that between May 2024 and March 2025, local opposition helped tank or delay $64 billion worth of data center projects across the US.
That opposition has pushed local lawmakers to act. According to a tracker maintained by Good Jobs First, "at least 63 local data-center moratorium actions have been introduced, considered, or adopted across dozens of towns and counties," and "some 54 have already passed."
At the state level, Good Jobs First counted "at least 12 in-session states with filed data center moratorium bills this cycle," and noted that some governors have taken or floated executive action to slow or pause AI data center build-outs.
But the Trump administration is trying to move in the opposite direction.
In a national policy framework document unveiled last week, the White House urged Congress to "streamline federal permitting for AI infrastructure construction and operation" and called for a prohibition on state regulation of AI.
Jim Walsh, FWW's policy director, slammed the White House framework as "more of the same nonsense we’ve been hearing for months" and warned that "more data centers mean more climate-killing fracked gas power plants poisoning our air and water, and more stress placed on local communities’ precious water resources."
"The only prudent course of action when it comes to AI," said Walsh, "is to halt the explosive growth of new data center construction now, so that states and communities have the time needed to properly consider their own futures."
"How much death and destruction is enough before they’ll do the right thing and act to end this war?”
The Republican-controlled US Senate voted late Tuesday to block a resolution aimed at ending President Donald Trump's disastrous, illegal, and deeply unpopular war on Iran as the Pentagon approved a deployment of Army paratroopers to the Middle East, the latest escalation in a conflict the White House claims has already been won.
The latest war powers resolution, led by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), failed to advance by a vote of 47-53, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) joining every Republican except Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) in opposing the measure. If enacted, the bill would have forced the withdrawal of US forces from hostilities against Iran.
Murphy said in a statement following the vote that the consequences of the US-Israeli war on Iran, now in its fourth week, "are stunning in their scope: higher prices for American businesses and American families, a potential global recession, the wasting of billions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and new conflicts in the region that didn't exist before the war began."
"If our Republican colleagues will not do their duty, if they are going to engage in an effort to hide the consequences of the war, if they are going to refuse to ask questions of our incompetent national security leaders at the White House, who have waged this war without planning for the foreseeable consequences, then we will force a debate and a vote on this floor," said Murphy. "This war is not going to make more sense the longer it goes.”
The vote came hours after Trump, speaking from the Oval Office, declared that "this war has been won" even as his administration ordered around 2,000 soldiers from the US Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to begin deploying to the Middle East, heightening concerns that the president intends to launch a ground invasion of Iran.
“We’re keeping our hand on that throttle as long and as hard as is necessary to ensure the interests of the United States of America are achieved on that battlefield," Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday, amid reports that the administration is considering plans to "occupy or blockade" Iran's Kharg Island—which processes the vast majority of Iran's oil exports.
The New York Times reported that the new troop contingent "includes Maj. Gen. Brandon R. Tegtmeier, the division commander, and dozens of his staff members, as well as two battalions, each with about 800 soldiers."
"More of the brigade’s soldiers could be sent in the coming days," the Times noted, citing unnamed officials. "Taken together with some 4,500 Marines already en route to the region, the deployment of the elite Army forces brings the total number of additional ground troops dispatched to the war zone since the conflict started to nearly 7,000."
Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council, said late Tuesday that "with a possible ground invasion of Iran being planned that would trigger mass casualties and deepen a global economic and strategic crisis, only 47 senators upheld their duty to the Constitution and the American people who overwhelmingly oppose this war."
"The blowback of this war is only beginning and will continue to mount—for US interests, the global economy, and the people of Iran," Costello warned. "Those 53 senators who voted to allow the war to continue should make clear: Do they support this war escalating? Do they want Donald Trump to commit troops to a war that they don’t even have the courage to authorize? And how much death and destruction is enough before they’ll do the right thing and act to end this war?"