The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

TODAY. Plummeting hopes for Small Nuclear Reactors – and that realisation is a blow to the nuclear weapons industry.

The new problem is – that they can no longer hide the escalating costs of “commercial” small nuclear reactors.

But small nuclear reactors have nothing to do with war – do they?

They sure do!

For one thing – they power the deadly submarines that have their nuclear missiles ready to target and incinerate whole cities, (dunno where those nuclear wastes go – ?into the ocean)

But more importantly – “small” nuclear reactors – (and by the way, they’re not small any more now) – are intended as a pretty cloak, or mask, over the nuclear weapons industry.

How so? Well, scientists, governments, and nuclear corporation bosses all know that

(a) small nuclear reactors are now, and always will be . irrelevant to global heating – especially as many thousands of them would be needed in a very short time if they were to have the supposed effect against climate change.

(b) absurdly expensive, smrs are not a credible investment – so, only governments will pay for them.

So – the beauty of small nuclear reactors is that they are a marvellous “con”. The goal is to “con” the public.

“Solving climate change” is the pretty cloak over SMRs that makes them appeal to the public.

“Solving energy problems” looks good, too.

Very importantly, young men and women can be attracted into this “peaceful” nuclear industry.

And it all looks so “modern” and :feminist-friendly” – attractive to “progressively” minded people.

Wake up, world – those are all lies.


November 25, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Small Modular Nuclear Reactor cost overruns: the same old problems haunt new nuclear in Utah

 Much hope is being placed on Small Modular Reactors (SMR) making new
nuclear plants competitive. But David Schlissel at IEEFA summarises their
research into the publications, updates and statements coming from the
stakeholders involved with the SMR by UAMPS (Utah Associated Municipal
Power Systems) and NuScale Power Corporation that shows that costs are
going out of control, a persistent problem in the nuclear industry.

The original target power price of $55/MWh has risen to $100 (with subsidies)
and is likely to rise further by the time it’s switched on in 2030, says
Schlissel. Construction costs and delays are the main causes (as usual). So
concerned are potential customers that, since February 2022, only 101MW of
the plant’s total 462MW have been subscribed to.

It will be difficult to
secure financing for the plant without a fully subscribed project.
Meanwhile, IEEFA figures say renewable resources and battery storage will
provide reliable electricity at lower cost than the UAMPS plant, even if
the price for the power from the project is just $58 per MWh. And
renewables and battery costs are still declining.

 Energy Post 25th Nov 2022 more

November 25, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | 1 Comment

Could the Minsk II agreement Have Prevented the War in Ukraine?

a significant minority of Ukrainians want to remain close to Russia, and for them fully integrating with the West represents a loss.  

The fundamental problem for Ukraine was that a majority of citizens sought closer ties with the West, but a significant minority sought closer ties with Russia, and these two aspirations were mutually incompatible.

Daily Sceptic, BY NOAH CARL., 23 NOVEMBER 2022,

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began, Western commentators have spent a huge amount of time expressing moral outrage at Russia’s actions, but comparatively little time thinking about how the war could have been prevented.

This is puzzling. Even if Ukraine manages to win, this victory will have come at an enormous price – tens of thousands of lives, millions of refugees (many of whom may never return), and untold damage to the country’s infrastructure. No matter what the outcome, the war will have been disastrous for ordinary Ukrainians.

It therefore seems essential to ask whether it could have been prevented.

One possible way it could have been prevented is through deterrence. NATO members could have announced in advance, ‘We commit to defending Ukraine if it is ever attacked by Russia’. Alternatively, the U.S. and its allies could have armed Ukraine to the teeth by transferring huge quantities of offensive weapons.

The disadvantages of this approach are obvious. It might have caused Russia to invade even sooner to forestall the arrival of NATO troops or weapons. And if Russia did call the West’s bluff, it might have sparked World War III, as NATO would have pre-committed to entering the war on Ukraine’s side.

As late as February 2014, the percentage of Ukrainians who wanted to join the EU was only 5 points higher than the percentage who wanted to join the Eurasian Customs Union. The balance of opinion then shifted after the ‘Revolution of Dignity’.

There’s another possible way the war could have been prevented: through the implementation of Minsk II. This was an agreement signed in 2015 by representatives from Russia, Ukraine and the two separatist republics, which aimed to bring an end to the fighting in Donbas. It was based on a plan drawn-up by the leaders of France and Germany.

Although Minsk II ultimately failed, since neither side honoured the terms, it was unanimously endorsed

by the UN Security Council.

Critics of Minsk II say it was too favourable to the Russian/separatist side. This is because the agreement would have granted significant autonomy to the two Donbas regions, allowing them to veto Ukraine’s future membership of NATO and possibly its membership of the EU as well. (Minsk II is roughly equivalent to the plan John Mearsheimer put forward in 2014, which emphasised Ukrainian neutrality.)

For Ukrainians who aspire to fully integrate with the West, not being able to join NATO or the EU represents a major loss. Yet a significant minority of Ukrainians want to remain close to Russia, and for them fully integrating with the West represents a loss.  

Likewise, almost half of Ukrainians opposed the Maidan protest movement, including a plurality who “[did] not support it all”. For this reason alone, calling the subsequent change of government a ‘Revolution of Dignity’ is highly dubious.  

The fundamental problem for Ukraine was that a majority of citizens sought closer ties with the West, but a significant minority sought closer ties with Russia, and these two aspirations were mutually incompatible.

You might say that in a democracy, the majority gets to decide the future path of the country, so Minsk II was fundamentally unfair. Yet it’s widely understood that in ethnically divided countries, the majority often has to make concessions to the minority for the sake of overall stability. Half the parliamentary seats in Lebanon are reserved for Christians and half for Muslims, regardless of the ethnic make-up of the country (which no one quite knows), to prevent one group from dominating the other.

In any case, the European interest – as judged by the leaders of France and Germany – was preserving stability in Ukraine, rather than ensuring the country’s pro-Western majority got its way.

According to the New York Times, the plan for Minsk II emerged “in response to reports that lethal assistance was now on the table in Washington”. In other words, the U.S. wanted to start supplying Ukraine with offensive weapons, so France and Germany stepped in to broker a peace deal before that happened.

Why did Minsk II fail? As I’ve already stated, neither side upheld its end of the bargain. Yet historian Anatol Lieven argues it could have worked but for “the refusal of Ukrainian governments to implement the solution and the refusal of the United States to put pressure on them to do so”…………………………

why, as the country’s main backer, did the U.S. not pressure Ukraine to implement the agreement? After all, the U.S. endorsed the agreement in its capacity as a member of the UN Security Council, and the U.S. pressures its allies to do things all the time.

The obvious reason is that U.S. interests were not served by the implementation of Minsk II.

From a Western perspective, preventing the war in Ukraine would have required the French and Germans to act more decisively, or the Americans to look beyond their own interests. Unfortunately, neither of these eventualities came to pass……………………………

November 25, 2022 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

It’s high time to defuse the military carbon bomb

We cannot tackle climate change, and save our collective future, while increasing military spending.

the richest countries spent $9.45 trillion on their militaries between 2013 and 2021 compared with an estimated $234bn on climate finance – in other words, they have spent 30 times as much on the military as climate finance.

The annual United Nations climate talks, known as the Conference of Parties (COP), have traditionally promised much but delivered little. This year’s COP27 was no different, with most observers noting that it even backtracked on commitments made at COP26 in Glasgow.

What was less observed was that the summit faced a major additional obstacle in 2022. This year, the climate crisis was overshadowed by the war in Ukraine which has been the foreign policy priority of the United States and the European Union since the beginning of Russia’s invasion in February.

The difference between the way the world’s richest countries responded to the Ukraine war and the carbon war on our whole planet is undoubtedly stark.

Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion, the US and its NATO allies provided Ukraine with military assistance worth more than $25bn, welcomed nearly seven million refugees, and willingly absorbed severe economic shocks caused by energy price increases triggered by the war.

Despite a global recession looming on the horizon, these countries did not hesitate to increase their military expenditure. Germany allocated 100 billion euros ($104bn) of its 2022 budget for the armed forces, for example, and the US House of Representatives approved a record $840bn military spending.

Yet at COP27, these same wealthiest nations were not even able to deliver the $100bn in climate finance that had been promised as far back as 2009 to the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. A recent report co-published by the organisation I work for, the Transnational Institute, found that the richest countries spent $9.45 trillion on their militaries between 2013 and 2021 compared with an estimated $234bn on climate finance – in other words, they have spent 30 times as much on the military as climate finance.

After many years of pressure, at COP27, nations finally agreed to create a loss and damage mechanism to provide funds to impoverished countries suffering severe climate impacts, but it is so far just an empty pot. The accelerated arms race that has emerged since the Russian invasion and rising US-China tensions signal that filling that pot will not be a priority for most wealthy nations in the near future.

These spending choices matter not just because they are diverting resources from urgently needed climate action, but also because every dollar spent on the military is worsening the climate crisis. Most militaries consume significant amounts of fossil fuels. One estimate calculates that military emissions may make up 5.5 percent of global emissions. If the global military were a country, it would be the fourth biggest emitter in the world, ahead of Russia.

Furthermore, most of the world’s military spending goes towards the purchase of equipment and vehicles that are among the worst offenders when it comes to carbon emissions. In 2022 alone, for example, 475 new F-35 fighter jets, which use a whopping 5,600 litres (1,480 gallons) of oil per hour of flight, have been ordered. These fuel-guzzling planes could be flying for the next 30 years.

The emissions increase even further when war breaks out. The Ukrainian government at COP27 presented research showing that the first eight months of war had already led to 33 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to adding 16 million cars to the United Kingdom’s roads for two years.

US and UK military chiefs argue that they are committed to reducing military emissions, but their plans so far remain undetailed, opaque and unconvincing. Adding solar panels to a military base is easy to do, but does nothing to tackle the main challenge, which is fossil fuel consumption by military jets, ships and tanks. For now, there is no alternative, green fuel that can be produced at the scale needed and without triggering unacceptable social and environmental consequences, such as increased deforestation and the dispossession of Indigenous peoples.

The uncomfortable truth is that there is no way of ensuring that our planet remains habitable in the long term while continuing to increase military spending. In the midst of an intense and brutal war in Ukraine, this fact is too easily lost as governments are able to justify any increases in military spending to deal with the new immediate “threats”.

Moreover, the military spending of many rich countries is already way out of proportion to any real or perceived threat. NATO member states, for example, already spend 17 times as much on the military as Russia. The US spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined.

Meanwhile, the world has an ever smaller window to tackle climate change – the most pressing threat to our collective future. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the world must cut emissions by 45 percent by 2030 to have any chance at keeping global average temperature increases below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). When every month counts, embarking on an accelerated arms race is the worst path the world’s most powerful nations can take. It diverts money and attention from urgent climate action, it increases emissions and it fuels conflicts at a time of increased climate instability.

Climate change can teach us a critical lesson about security. Carbon emissions do not recognise borders. It is not possible for any nation to shield itself from the effects of climate change using tanks or fighter jets. The only way to tackle the climate emergency is through global cooperation. Demilitarisation and peace are the best and perhaps the only ways to ensure that humanity has the capacity and resilience to respond to this crisis.

Only if the world’s leaders recognise that uniting to confront the threat of global heating is more important than any imperialist strategy or narrow economic interest, may we have a chance to avoid climate catastrophe. A secure nation in the end depends on a secure planet.

November 25, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US Arms Dealing Is Out of Control

What will it take to rein in Washington’s arms-sales addiction?

The Nation, By William D. Hartung. NOVEMBER 23, 2022,

There’s a seldom commented upon reality of this century and this moment: The United States remains the number-one arms-exporting nation on the planet. Between 2017 and 2021, it grabbed 39 percent of the total global weapons market, and there’s nothing new about that. It has, in fact, been the top arms dealer in every year but one for the past three decades. And it’s a remarkably lucrative business, earning American weapons makers tens of billions of dollars annually.

It would be one thing if it were simply a matter of money raked in by the industrial half of the military-industrial complex. Unfortunately, in these years, US-supplied weaponry has also fueled conflicts, enabled human-rights violations, helped destabilize not just individual countries but whole regions, and made it significantly easier for repressive regimes to commit war crimes.

At first glance, it appeared that Joe Biden, on entering the White House, might take a different approach to arms sales. On the campaign trail in 2020, he had, for instance, labeled Saudi Arabia a “pariah” state and implied that the unbridled flow of US weaponry to that kingdom would be reduced, if not terminated. He also bluntly assured voters that this country wouldn’t “check its values at the door to sell arms.”

Initially, Biden paused arms deals to that country and even suspended one bomb sale. Unfortunately, within eight months of his taking office, sales to the Saudi regime had resumed. In addition, the Biden team has offered arms to a number of other repressive regimes from Egypt and Nigeria to the Philippines. Such sales contrast strikingly with the president’s mantra of supporting “democracies over autocracies,” as well as his reasonable impulse to supply weapons to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia’s brutal invasion.

The last president who attempted to bring runaway US weapons trafficking under some sort of control was Jimmy Carter. In 1976, he campaigned for the presidency on a platform based, in part, on promoting human rights globally and curbing the arms trade. And for a period as president, he did indeed suspend sales to repressive regimes, while, in that Cold War era, engaging in direct talks with the Soviet Union on reducing global arms sales. He also spoke out eloquently about the need to rein in the trade in death and destruction.

However, Zbigniew Brzezinski, his hard-line national security advisor, waged a campaign inside his administration against the president’s efforts, arguing that arms sales were too valuable as a tool of Cold War influence to be sacrificed at the altar of human rights. And once that longtime ally, the shah of Iran, was overthrown in 1978 and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, all talk of controlling the arms trade went out the window.


What accounts for Joe Biden’s transformation from a president intent on controlling arms sales to a business-as-usual promoter of such weaponry globally? The root cause can be found in his administration’s adherence to a series of misguided notions about the value of arms sales. In a recent report I wrote for the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft on the US approach to such exports, I lay out those notions fully, including lending a hand in stabilizing key regions, deterring Washington’s adversaries from engaging in aggression, building meaningful military-to-military relationships with current or potential partner nations, increasing this country’s political and diplomatic influence globally, and creating jobs here in the United States. In the Saudi case, Biden’s shift was tied to the dangerous notion that we needed to bolster the Kingdom’s supposedly crucial role in “containing Iran”—a policy that only increases the risk of war in the region—and the false promise that, in return, the Saudis would expand their oil output to help curb soaring gas prices here at home.

Such explanations are part of an all-encompassing belief in Washington that giving away or selling weaponry of every sort to foreign clients is a risk-free way of garnering yet more economic, political, and strategic influence globally. The positive spin advocates of the arms trade give to the government’s role as the world’s largest arms broker ignores the fact that, in too many cases, the risks—from fueling conflict and increasing domestic repression elsewhere to drawing the United States into unnecessary wars—far outweigh any possible benefits.


There are numerous examples, both historically and in the present moment, of how this country’s arms sales have done more harm than good, but for now let’s just highlight four of them—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, and the Philippines.






While the humanitarian consequences of US arms sales may be devastating, if you happen to be a major weapons maker like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, or General Dynamics, the economic benefits are enormous. Weapons systems built by those four companies alone have figured in more than half of the $100 billion-plus in major arms offers made since President Biden took office.

While those firms prefer to pose as passive beneficiaries of carefully considered government policies, they continue to work overtime to loosen restrictions on weapons exports and expand the number of countries eligible for such equipment and training. To that end, those four giant firms alone routinely donate millions of dollars to key members of Congress, while employing 300 lobbyists, many of them drawn from the ranks of the Pentagon, Congress, and the National Security Council. Once on board, those retired generals, admirals, and other officials use their government contacts and inside knowledge of the arm-sales process to influence government policies and practices.

A particularly egregious and visible example of this was Raytheon’s effort to pressure Congress and the Trump administration to approve a sale of precision-guided munitions to the Saudis. A former Raytheon lobbyist, Charles Faulkner, worked inside the State Department to keep the Saudi arms pipeline open despite that country’s bombing of civilian targets in Yemen, and then Raytheon’s former CEO, Thomas Kennedy, even went so far as to directly lobby Senate Foreign Relations chairman Senator Robert Menendez over Saudi arms sales. (He was rebuffed.) But the most spectacular lobbyist for the Saudis was, of course, President Trump, who justified continuing arms sales to Riyadh after the regime’s 2018 murder of US resident, Saudi journalist, and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi this way:

$110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and many other great U.S. defense contractors. If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries—and very happy to acquire all this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States!

In fact, neither Russia nor China would be able to replace the US as Saudi Arabia’s primary arms supplier any time soon. The kingdom is so reliant on American equipment that it might take a decade or more for it to rebuild its military around weapons supplied by another nation.

In reality, expansive as American arms sales to the Saudis are, that $110 billion figure was a typical case of Trumpian exaggeration. Actual sales during his term were less than one-third of that, and jobs tied to those sales in the US were similarly far less than President Trump claimed. The figure he liked to throw around— 500,000—was at least 12 times the actual one. Still, the damage done by the weaponry his administration rammed through Congress for the Saudis has been incalculable and can’t be measured by the dollar value of any particular sale.

The Raytheon lobbying campaign was extraordinary primarily because its details became public knowledge. But count on one thing: Similar efforts by other military-industrial corporations surely take place behind closed doors on a regular basis. One precondition for reducing dangerous arms deals would have to be reducing the political power of the major weapons-producing companies.


In 2019, spurred by Saudi actions ranging from the war in Yemen to the Khashoggi murder, both houses of Congress voted down a specific deal for the first time—$1.5 billion in precision-guided bombs for Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern clients—only to have their actions vetoed by President Trump. Successful votes to end military support or Saudi Arabia under the War Powers Resolution met a similar fate……………………………

Success in reining in Washington’s arms-sales addiction will, at the very least, require a major campaign of public education. Too few Americans even know about their nation’s role as the world’s largest weapons trader, much less the devastating impact of the arms it transfers. But when asked, a majority of Americans are against arming repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and consider arms sales to be “a hazard to US security.”

Still, until there is greater public understanding of the humanitarian and security consequences of what the government is doing in our name, coupled with concerted pressure on the Biden administration, the national security state, and the weapons makers, the arms trade is likely to continue full speed ahead. If so, those companies will remain in weapons heaven, while so many people on this planet will find themselves in a hell on Earth

November 25, 2022 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The projected cost of new nuclear power has risen by fourfold since 2008 – and it is still rising

The projected cost of new nuclear power has risen by almost fourfold since
the UK Government made estimates in 2008, and the cost is still rising.

Nuclear analysts warn that the cost to consumers of funding Sizewell C
through the so-called ‘Regulatory Asset Base’ (RAB) model will be much
higher than has been projected by the Government.

In 2008 as the Government argued for more nuclear power stations to be built, the Government, in a
White Paper on nuclear costs, said that each 1.6 GWe EPR reactor would cost
around 2.8 billion. But the most recently released (by EDF) cost of the
Hinkley C EPR double reactor is £25.5 billion (in 2015 prices) and assumes
the plant will be completed by 2027.

This equates to £12.75 billion per
each 1.6 GWe reactor, as reported by World Nuclear News. This is nearly
four times the estimate made by the UK Government in 2008 after inflation
is taken into account.

100% Renewables 25th Nov 2022

November 25, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Estonian public concerned about radioactive waste from planned nuclear power plant.

The handling of radioactive nuclear waste is one of the public’s biggest
concerns in discussions about potentially building a nuclear power plant in
Estonia, pollsters have found. In 2024, the government will make a decision
on whether or not to build a nuclear power plant in Estonia.

This will be based on a report currently being put together by the Ministry of
Environment. Surveys show nuclear energy is seen as an alternative to using
shale oil to create energy. But the public’s attitudes can be broadly split
into three groups: supporters, opponents and skeptics.

ERR 24th Nov 2022

November 25, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, wastes | Leave a comment

World’s Biggest Nuclear-Fusion Project Faces Delays as Component Cracks.

Cracks in a key silver-lined component are creating new delays and cost
overruns in the $23 billion project to prove whether nuclear fusion can
generate limitless clean energy.

The International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor, or ITER, under construction in southern France is
being funded by the European Union and countries including China, India,
Japan, Russia and South Korea. The world’s biggest experiment aims to show
that mimicking the power that makes stars shine can produce clean energy
that could help slow global warming on Earth.

But new ITER Director-General
Pietro Barabaschi warned members this week the project faces problems that
are potentially “extensive,” along with new requirements for time and
money that “will not be insignificant.”

Bloomberg 25th Nov 2022

November 25, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, technology | Leave a comment

China Prevented Transfer Of Polish MiG-29 Fighter Jets To Ukraine; Kept Russia Away From Nuclear Escalation

Eurasian Times, Tanmay Kadam November 25, 2022

Chinaa allegedly prevented the transfer of Polish MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine through secret back-channel talks with Washington. The Chinese intervention caused the US to reject Poland’s offer to hand over its MiG-29 fighters to a US airbase for use by Ukrainian Air Force.

Beijing is playing a critical behind-the-scenes role in managing the fallout of the ongoing Ukraine crisis even though publicly it has maintained a low profile, according to the latest revelations made by a British journalist, Owen Matthews, who writes about Russia for ‘The Spectator,’ a UK-based weekly magazine.

China’s actual position on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war has been difficult to discern. So far, Beijing has only offered diplomatic and informational support to Moscow, as part of which it has regularly accused the US of brewing tensions with Russia.

In October, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, that “China will also firmly support the Russian side, under the leadership of President Putin, to unite and lead the Russian people,” according to China’s state-owned media.

Furthermore, Wang promised to deepen contacts with the Russian side at all levels.

At the same time, China has refrained from providing any significant military assistance to Russia’s war effort in Ukraine, forcing Moscow to turn to Iran to acquire combat drones. Recent reports suggest that Russia could even buy missiles from Iran.

In September, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Wang told NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that China “stays open-minded to dialogues and exchanges with NATO and is willing to promote the sound and steady development of bilateral relations jointly.”

China Wants To Avoid Nuclear Escalation 

According to Matthews, who cites a source close to officials of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Beijing’s key priority is for the Russia-NATO confrontation to “avoid any nuclear escalation and to help reach a ceasefire.”

This was witnessed during the recent G20 summit in Bali, where Chinese President Xi Jinping said that the world “needs to prevent a nuclear crisis on the Eurasian continent” in a meeting with his US counterpart Joe Biden, marking a rare instance of public agreement between the US and China over Russia.

President Xi also appealed publicly for a “return to diplomacy and stressing the urgency in finding a peaceful resolution.”

Therefore, according to Matthews, Poland’s offer of supplying Ukraine with its entire fleet of MiG-29 fighter jets in March was a cause of concern for the Chinese, as it threatened significant tensions between NATO and Russia…………………………..

Initial reports in March indicated that the US was positively considering Poland’s proposal to send its MiG-29s to Ukraine in return for advanced US-made F-16s. However, the Pentagon later rejected Poland’s surprise statement that it would hand over its MiG-29 fighter jets to a US airbase for use by Ukraine.

How China Changed Washington’s Mind?

According to Matthews, an “urgent and confidential back-channel initiative” involved former European leaders and senior officials and was backed by the Chinese, which changed Washington’s mind………………

November 25, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Environmental Social and Corporate governance” – EDF and the nuclear lobby try to trick the world with fake “green” credentials

€1bn EDF loan lays the groundwork for nuclear green bond

IFR, 26 Nov 

IFR 2461 – 26 Nov 2022 – 02 Dec 2022 Tessa Walsh A €1bn loan to EDF is the first green[?] loan to be earmarked for the nuclear power industry and shows the increasing renaissance [?]of the nuclear industry as a source of clean[?] energy and energy security [?].

The bilateral green loan from Credit Agricole will finance the maintenance of EDF’s power plants in France. Outages at EDF’s 56-strong fleet of reactors has severely hit production this year and spiralling financial problems prompted the French government to announce plans in July to renationalise the company.

France is buying the 16% of EDF’s capital that it does not already own for an estimated €9.7bn.

The green loan will help fund the “Grand Carenage”, a major industrial programme led by EDF that aims to improve national energy security and extend the operating life of reactors beyond 40 years after a summer of shutdowns and strike action………………………………………..

A green bond with a nuclear use of proceeds could be on the cards post-nationalisation……………..

UK nuclear power plant operator Sizewell C is also looking at ESG-labelled debt in early 2023 to fund part of the £15bn cost of the UK’s new-generation nuclear reactor and is considering green bonds as well as social or sustainable bonds.

New reactors

EDF is bracing for a hit of around €32bn to its full-year core earnings from lower production, and the company first has to stabilise its production and financing before gearing up to invest in expensive new reactors that remain controversial due to concerns about nuclear waste.

France is planning to build at least six reactors in the coming decades at an estimated cost of €50bn. The UK government has also commissioned EDF to build up to eight reactors by 2050 with up to 24GW capacity, many of which will be small modular reactors that could also attract ESG financing……………

November 25, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

UK government underestimated the cost to the public of Regulated Asset Base financing of nuclear power

 The government has been accused of under-estimating the cost to customers
of its new financing support mechanism for nuclear power, which could add
£100 onto annual bills if ex-prime minister Boris Johnson’s pledge to
roll out a new fleet of the plants is honoured.

At a meeting of the
All-Party Parliamentary Group on Energy Costs, held at the House of Commons
on Wednesday (23 November), University of Greenwich emeritus professor of
energy Steve Thomas criticised the use of the Regulated Asset Base (RAB)
for nuclear projects.

 Utility Week 24th Nov 2022

November 25, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Mayor of Ukraine’s second-largest city fined for speaking Russian

The Kharkov city head has been accused of violating the law by addressing his fellow residents in a “non-state” language. 24 Nov 22

Kiev has slapped the mayor of Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkov, with a fine for using what the authorities called a “non-state” language in an official TV address. Mayor Igor Terekhov is known for addressing his fellow residents in Russian.

Terekhov will have to pay a fine of 3,400 hryvnas ($92) for violating Ukrainian law, Taras Kremin, the Ukrainian government’s commissioner for the protection of the state language, said in a statement on Thursday.

The mayor had “used non-state language in his addresses to the residents of the city of Kharkov” during a news telethon, the statement read, calling this an “administrative offense.” The language commissioner’s office also issued an administrative warning to the mayor’s office, telling it to only use Ukrainian on the mayor’s social media pages.

Terekhov has until December 4 to appeal the commissioner’s decision, the statement read. The Ukrainian authorities did not specify what language the mayor had used during the telethon, but the Ukrainian media reported that he was known for regularly addressing his fellow residents in Russian.

According to the language commissioner’s office, Terekhov and some Kharkov city council members have already been found in violation of the state language law. It is unclear if they were sanctioned back then as well.

The Ukrainian state language law was signed by then-President Pyotr Poroshenko back in 2019, five days before his presidential mandate expired. The legislation requires Ukrainian public officials to use only the Ukrainian language when discharging their duties.

Ukrainians are also required to use the Ukrainian language in the fields of public services, medical care, education and science, as well as in the media, although certain exceptions are allowed. A person found in violation of this law might face a fine of up to 8,500 hryvnas ($230), which can be further doubled for a repeated offense.

In mid-June, the language commissioner was granted the right to impose fines on those found in violation of the law. In October, an assistant professor at the Ukrainian National Aviation University was slapped with a fine of 3,400 hryvnas ($92) for teaching through a “non-state language.”

November 25, 2022 Posted by | legal, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

The Amazon forest is reaching a tipping point and starting to collapse

The Amazon forest is reaching a tipping point and starting to collapse

Dusty wells. Streams ebbing away. Pristine reserves aflame. Some scientists think the tipping point is already here.

November 25, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

November 25 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “‘Africa’s COP’ Made Some Big Promises. Here Is How To Deliver” • COP27, called the “African COP,” put the continent center stage in the global effort to fight the causes and effects of climate change. The African Development Bank says climate change costs Africa up to $15 billion per year and will cost […]

November 25 Energy News — geoharvey

November 25, 2022 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment