nuclear-news

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

NuScale Power the canary in the small modular nuclear reactor market

SMRs are being marketed as a solution to the climate crisis, but they’re already far more expensive and take much longer to build than renewable and storage resources – that we already have.

Utility Dive, David Schlissel, 21 Mar 23, Davis Schlissel is the Institute for Energy Economics anf Financial Analysis director of resource planning analysis.

NuScale is hoping to be among the first of about a dozen companies trying to take advantage of the much-hyped market for small modular nuclear reactors or SMR. So far, however, the Oregon-based company is looking like the first canary in the coal-mine.

Considered a leader in the new technology, NuScale is marketing its SMR project by claiming that the reactor design project will save time and money – persistent problems for traditional large nuclear plants.

But NuScale and the Utah Municipal Power Systems, its partner in an SMR project planned for Idaho, announced early in January, that the target price for the power from their proposed modular reactor had risen by 53% from $58/MWh to $89/MWh……..

The announcement has serious implications for all would-be SMR manufacturers………………

the new $89/MWh target price already means that power from the NuScale SMR will be much more expensive than renewable and storage resources even with an estimated $4.2 billion in tax-payer subsidies.

……………………………….. The gap is only going to get larger as the costs of building SMRs rise and costs of renewables and storage continue to decline.

………….. Using SMRs as backups for renewables will not be financially feasible

………………………………….evryone – utilities, ratepayers, legislators, federal officials and the general public, should be very sceptical about theindustry’s current claim that the new SMRs will cost less and be built faster than previous designs. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-power-small-modular-reactor-smr-ieefa-uamps/645554/

March 26, 2023 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

European Tiny Modular Reactor Deal Starts With Absurdly Expensive Electricity

Already 2.4 times as expensive as very, very expensive Hinkley. First of a kind, so very likely to double or more in price. Very unlikely to be built before 2040 due to long-tailed risks.

Small modular reactors won’t achieve economies of manufacturing scale, won’t be faster to construct, forego efficiency of vertical scaling, won’t be cheaper, aren’t suitable for remote or brownfield coal sites, still face very large security costs, will still be costly and slow to decommission, and still require liability insurance caps. They don’t solve any of the problems that they purport to while intentionally choosing to be less efficient than they could be. They’ve existed since the 1950s and they aren’t any better now than they were then.

By Michael Barnard, 25 Mar 23,  https://cleantechnica.com/2023/03/23/european-tiny-modular-reactor-deal-starts-with-absurdly-expensive-electricity/

Supposedly a European energy deal has been reached in which a US firm sells a bunch of tiny nuclear reactors to European countries at an enormous price per GW. It’s hard to think that anybody would ink the deal as described.

It was a Bloomberg piece, and Bloomberg normally gets the facts right, although Bloomberg New Energy Finance gets the framing right far more often. And a bit of evaluation seems to confirm the basics. So let’s tear it apart.

Let’s start with small modular nuclear reactors (SMR). The premise is that they will be a lot cheaper than big nuclear reactors because, you know, modularity. Anything you can manufacture in large numbers drops in price, typically by 20% to 27% for every doubling of units. That’s a truism known as Wright’s Law after the first management consultant who observed it, the experience curve per Boston Consulting Group which happily stole and rebranded it or just the learning curve.

There are a bunch of problems with this premise when it comes to nuclear electricity generation. I’ve written about them, had my content peer-reviewed and included in text books, and debated them with nuclear industry proponents for audiences of a couple of hundred institutional investors likely representing funds worth close to a trillion, so I’m just going to quote myself:

Small modular reactors won’t achieve economies of manufacturing scale, won’t be faster to construct, forego efficiency of vertical scaling, won’t be cheaper, aren’t suitable for remote or brownfield coal sites, still face very large security costs, will still be costly and slow to decommission, and still require liability insurance caps. They don’t solve any of the problems that they purport to while intentionally choosing to be less efficient than they could be. They’ve existed since the 1950s and they aren’t any better now than they were then.

As I discussed with Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, megaprojects expert and author of How Big Things Get Done recently, small modular reactor firms are trying to hunt for an optimized point on the continuum between the efficiencies of big thermal generation and modularity, and I don’t think they are going to find it.

And that’s really true for Last Energy if this reporting is remotely accurate. So what’s the story? Well, apparently they’ve signed a $19 billion deal to supply 34 nuclear reactors that are 20 MW each. Apparently they are going to at least Poland and the UK, although regulatory approval stands in their way.

The first thing that caught my eye was the MW capacity. 34 reactors of 20 MW each only adds up to 680 MW of nameplate capacity. That’s smaller than a billion dollar offshore wind farm that takes ten months to build.

Side note: Nuclear nameplate capacities are usually reported with units of MWe, or megawatts of electricity. That’s because their thermal energy output is perhaps three times the size, but meaningless, as all we care about is the electricity. I just stick with MW usually because the best comparison is to wind and solar which don’t create and waste a lot of heat. However, at 20 MWe, the tininess of the reactor and related thermal generation suggests that the efficiency of turning heat into electricity is probably much worse. That’s the point about thermal generation liking to scale and why everyone building nuclear went bigger in the 1970s and 1980s so that it wouldn’t be as expensive.

So, 20 MW. Is that accurate? I went to their public website, and sure enough, that’s the size. It’s their only claimed product, although they have built and delivered none of them anywhere.

The second thing that caught my attention was the eye-watering price tag, $19 billion. That seems really high even for nuclear, and especially high for only 680 MW.

Maybe this would be reasonable if nuclear normally had capacity factors of 20%, and this tech was operating at 90%, but nuclear globally runs about 90% of the time. It has high uptime, which proponents overstate as an advantage, but is the reality. You can’t actually operate nuclear less than 90% of the time and have it be reasonably priced due to the cost of building the stuff.

How does this compare? Let’s pick the British Hinkley Point C nuclear expansion, one of the most expensive and slowest in the developed world. It is so expensive that the developers demanded and got about $150 per MWh wholesale guaranteed for 35 years with inflation bumps. This when offshore wind energy is running around $50 per MWh wholesale and onshore wind and solar are running around $30 per MWh wholesale. Yeah, Hinkley is absurdly expensive electricity.

Let’s take a walk through memory lane. Hinkley was supposed to deliver electricity for about $24 per MWh when it was originally proposed in 2008, and be in operation by now. Five times the cost per MWh accounting for inflation, so a clear miss. And the current plan is pretending that in 2027 it’s going to be grid-connected, but that’s undoubtedly 2028 at earliest, 20 years after it was originally set in motion, and 11 years after start of construction. So far, so nuclear.

Hinkley’s current cost projection — five years from grid connection, so incredibly likely to rise by billions — is about $40 billion. That’s a lot of amortization per MWh, hence the remarkably high wholesale price. As a reminder, Iceland, which runs 100% on renewables, is delivering consumer retail prices lower than this wholesale price. All of Canada is providing consumer rates below this wholesale cost, although recent news makes it clear that nuclear heavy Ontario are subsidizing consumer rates by US$4.4 billion annually to prevent revolt. Hmmm, is this a trend?

Surely Hinkley must be turning out to be more expensive than this SMR deal? Well, no. Hinkley is building two big, complex, next-generation EPR reactors with 1,630 MW capacity each. That’s 3,260 MW total capacity. That’s almost five times the capacity of the Last Energy SMRs. For only two times the cost.

The ratio is pretty clear. These SMRs will be about 2.4 times the cost per MWh of the very expensive Hinkley facility. All else being equal — and the only reason we have to think this won’t be equal is that nuclear costs always rise, so the $19 billion is likely to be closer to $40 billion — this is already about $360 per MWh wholesale prices for electricity.

What’s the consumer retail price of electricity in the UK? About $340. What about coal heavy Poland? $181.

Yes, the very first announcement of a nuclear deal, probably well over a decade before anything might be connected to the grid, has wholesale rates well over consumer retail rates today.

On original – image of project categories which meet time, budget, and benefits expectations vs ones that don’t, from How Big Things Get Done by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner -(nuclear is the worst!)

This is the first version of new material from Flyvbjerg and his team. They have assembled over 16,000 megaprojects’ worth of data on budget, schedule, and asserted benefits vs actuals over 25 categories of projects. This is a view by likelihood of cost overruns. The top of the chart has the least likely categories to go over budget once the shovel hits the ground. The bottom has the categories most likely to go over budget, often by multiples of the original projections. You’ll note where nuclear lies.

SMRs are attempting to fix that by making a bunch of smaller, repeatable reactors instead of big ones. As I pointed out earlier, they are foregoing the efficiencies of being big enough to receive the benefits of physics for thermal generation in order to hunt for a point where modularity optimizes costs and risks sufficiently to make it economically viable.

However, at 2.4 times the cost per MWh of one of the most expensive nuclear generation projects on the planet, clearly they are nowhere near the field, never mind anywhere near the goal. As Flyvbjerg points out several times, first of a kind projects have massive long-talked risks, and Last Energy’s announcement has first of a kind in big neon screaming signage over every part of the deal.

Already 2.4 times as expensive as very, very expensive Hinkley. First of a kind, so very likely to double or more in price. Very unlikely to be built before 2040 due to long-tailed risks. Who exactly signed a deal like this, and why?

UPDATE:

Comments from Lyle Morton, Vice President of Marketing & Communications, Last Energy: Reaching out to clarify an important detail regarding the Last Energy announcement. The $19bn is not a cost figure but the total value of the electricity under contract over the duration of the 4 contracts — which range from 20-24 years.

My take: That’s still a ridiculous $160-$170 per MWh wholesale by the initial terms of the deals before all of the inevitable problems with first of a kind deployments. Even at $160-$170, I’ll believe this only when I see it in operation, at the price point specified, and delivering benefits as promised. I won’t be holding my breath.

‌

March 26, 2023 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

A $1 trillion defense budget would be madness — Beyond Nuclear International

And more than half of it will go to weapons manufacturers

https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/03/26/a-1-trillion-defense-budget-would-be-madness/

Biden has requested an obscene $886 billion for defense, but it could go higher

By William Hartung, 26 Mar 23

The Pentagon has released its budget request for Fiscal Year 2024. The figure for the Pentagon alone is a hefty $842 billion. That’s $69 billion more than the $773 billion the department requested for Fiscal Year 2023

Total spending on national defense — including work on nuclear weapons at the Department of Energy — comes in at $886 billion. Adding in likely emergency military aid packages for Ukraine later this year plus the potential tens of billions of dollars in Congressional add-ons could push total spending for national defense to as much as $950 billion or more for FY 2024. The result could be the highest military budget since World War II, far higher than at the peaks of the Korean or Vietnam Wars or the height of the Cold War. 

The proposed budget is far more than is needed to provide an effective defense of the United States and its allies.

If past experience is any guide, more than half of the new Pentagon budget will go to contractors, with the biggest share going to the top five — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman — to build everything from howitzers and tanks to intercontinental ballistic missiles. Much of the funding for contractors will come from spending on buying, researching, and developing weapons, which accounts for $315 billion of the new budget request.

he National Priorities Project gives us a look at the imbalance of government spending for 2021 with the military consuming almost half.

As suggested above, Congress will probably add a substantial amount to the Pentagon’s request, largely for systems and facilities located in the states and districts of key members. That’s no way to craft a budget — or defend a country. When it comes to defense, Congress should engage in careful oversight, not special interest politics. 

Unfortunately, in recent years the House and Senate have accelerated the practice of jacking up the Pentagon’s budget request, adding $25 billion in FY 2022 and $45 billion in FY 2023. Given threat inflation with respect to China and the ongoing war in Ukraine, there is a danger that the $45 billion added for FY2023 could be the floor for what might be added by Congress in the course of this year’s budget debate.

Exceptions to the rush to throw more money at the Pentagon may come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Representatives Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) have introduced the “People Over Pentagon Act,” which calls for a $100 billion annual cut in the DoD budget. A group of conservative lawmakers centered around the Freedom Caucus have called for a freeze on the discretionary budget at FY2022 levels. But different members have given different views on how Pentagon spending would fit into a budget freeze, from assertions that it will be “on the table” to a denial by one at least one member, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), that Pentagon cuts should come into play at all.

It has been reported that President Dwight D. Eisenhower believed that we should spend all we need for national defense and not one penny more. But the new motto of the Pentagon and the Congress appears to be “spend now and ask questions later.” Rather than matching funding to a viable national security strategy, the Pentagon and the Congress are pushing for whatever the political market will bear. The notion that tradeoffs need to be made against other urgent national priorities is a foreign concept to most members of the House and Senate, as they have routinely raised the Pentagon budget at the expense of other urgent national needs. 

There is more than money at stake. An open-ended strategy that seeks to develop capabilities to win a war with Russia or China, fight regional wars against Iran or North Korea, and sustain a global war on terror that includes operations in at least 85 countries is a recipe for endless conflict.

We can make America and its allies safer for far less money if we adopt a more realistic, restrained strategy and drive a harder bargain with weapons contractors that too often engage in price gouging and cost overruns while delivering dysfunctional systems that aren’t appropriate for addressing the biggest threats to our security.

The Congressional Budget Office has crafted three illustrative options that could ensure our security while spending $1 trillion less over the next decade. A strategy that incorporates aspects of these plans and streamlines the Pentagon budget in other areas could be sustained at roughly $150 billion per year less than current levels. 

A new approach would take a more objective, evidence-based view of the military challenges posed by Russia and China, rely more on allies to provide security in their own regions, reduce the U.S. global military footprint, and scale back the Pentagon’s $2 trillion plan to build a new generation of nuclear weapons. Cutting wasteful spending practices and slowing or replacing spending on unworkable or outmoded systems like the F-35 and a new $13 billion aircraft carrier could save billions more. And reducing spending on the half a million-plus private contractors employed by the Pentagon could save hundreds of billions over the next decade.


The Pentagon doesn’t need more spending. It needs more spending discipline, tied to a realistic strategy that sets clear priorities and acknowledges that some of the greatest risks we face are not military in nature. Today’s announcement is just the opening gambit in this year’s debate over the Pentagon budget. Hopefully critics of runaway spending will have more traction this year than has been the case for the past several years. If not, $1 trillion in annual military spending may be just around the corner, at great cost to taxpayers and to the safety and security of the country as a whole.

William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His work focuses on the arms industry and U.S. military budget. He was previously the director of the Arms and Security Program at the Center for International Policy and the co-director of the Center’s Sustainable Defense Task Force.

March 26, 2023 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Russian Factory That Makes Nuclear Missile Engines Catches Fire

News Week, BY ISABEL VAN BRUGEN ON 3/23/23

fire has broken out on the territory of a Russian factory that manufactures equipment for the Russian Army, according to state media reports.

Seven people have been rescued from a burning building and firefighters are still searching for the source of the blaze at the Yaroslavl Motor Plant, in Yaroslavl, Russia, which describes itself on its website as one of Russia’s largest enterprises producing multi-purpose diesel engines, clutches, gearboxes and spare parts.

The Russian Emergencies Ministry was quoted by state-run news agency TASS as saying that fire departments were alerted to the blaze at 1.30 p.m. local time. Photos circulating on social media show plumes of thick black smoke rising into the sky.

According to local media reports, there was an explosion prior to the fire…………………………

Russian blogger and analyst Anatoly Nesmiyan said on his Telegram channel that “something quite serious is on fire” at the factory, though did not elaborate on what that could be. Nesmiyan described the factory as one of the largest manufacturers of engines and gearboxes for equipment belonging to the Russian Army, including engines for Topol-M nuclear missile launchers.

According to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Topol-M is a Russian solid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 11,000 kilometers (6,835 miles).

The incident is the latest in a string of mysterious fires in Russia since President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

On Monday, a Russian anti-Putin partisan movement called Black Bridge claimed responsibility for last week’s fire at a building used by Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) in the southern city of Rostov-on-Don near the Ukraine border.  https://www.newsweek.com/russian-factory-fire-nuclear-missile-engines-fire-explosion-1789877

March 26, 2023 Posted by | incidents, Russia | Leave a comment

The UK Budget pushes nuclear and CCS, and the military link with small nuclear reactors is now overt

‘nuclear submarines would be too costly to build and maintain without an “industrial base” largely funded by elevated consumer electricity bills’. 

Renew Extra Weekly, 26 Mar 23

The UK spring budget announced investment of £20bn spread over the next two decades in carbon capture and support for nuclear, with a commitment to ‘spades in the ground on these projects from next year’ as energy security secretary, Grant Shapps, put it

…………………………………. boosting our own sources of clean generation is a must to shield us from future price shocks’. But it’s hard to see how investing in CCS will help- that is fossil based. And, like nuclear, it’s expensive. …………………………………………..

There was very little .. comfort….. in the Budget Red Book, even in the ‘Green Industries’ section (p.64-65). That focussed on CCS/CCUS and nuclear, with SMRs an initial  target for the new Great British Nuclear programme, and nuclear ‘to be included in the green taxonomy, subject to consultation, encouraging private investment’.

No mention of the negative impact of the windfall tax (EGL) on renewables. Indeed there is no direct mention of renewables anywhere in the text, and no mention of energy saving, apart from indirectly via 2 year extension of the Climate Change Agreement scheme. 

,…………………………………. Greenpeace said: ‘This misguided Budget shows the stranglehold fossil fuel and nuclear lobbies have on this government’.

……………………………………………………… For the moment, since the chancellor said in his budget speech that nuclear was ‘vital to meet our net-zero obligations’, he will be launching ‘the first’ competition for small modular reactors, to be run by Great British Nuclear and ‘completed by the end of this year’.  Though Carbon Brief noted that, actually, ‘the government previously launched a £250m competition for small nuclear in 2015, but no winners were announced. Since then, it has offered various pots of money, including “up to” £210m for Rolls Royce to develop its reactor design and “up to” £170m for “advanced” modular reactors.’ 

In parallel, the Government will be looking to the inclusion nuclear power in the UK ‘Green Taxonomy’. But this isn’t a done deal yet, there will be consultation, and, as was pointed out in an answer to a Parliamentary Question from Carolyn  Lucas, ‘with the support of the independent Green Technical Advisory Group and stakeholder engagement, we will take the time to get the taxonomy right to ensure it is usable and effective’.  That may lead to quite a debate, as has happened in the EU where the inclusion of nuclear (and gas) in its green taxonomy has been very contentious.

In the UK context, would inclusion actually help? Not everyone thought so- from an investment perspective, the problems were economic not environmental.   But, quite apart from being expensive, there were, actually, some environmental issues. Nuclear is low carbon, but not zero carbon. It leads to dangerous waste residues.  The pro-nuclear lobby these days sets that against its assumed role in support of variable renewables, but that may not be realistic: nuclear plants are inflexible and get in the way- see my earlier post. 

And so the somewhat tired old nuclear debate goes on.  With though a new extension- a military and civil nuclear interaction. In the recent Defence Review, the government said that ‘we will proactively look for opportunities to align delivery of the civil and defence nuclear enterprises, seeking synergies where appropriate to ensure a coherent demand signal to our industry and academic partners.’ For University of Sussex Prof. Andy Stirling, that confirmed his view that ‘nuclear submarines would be too costly to build and maintain without an “industrial base” largely funded by elevated consumer electricity bills’. 

It certainly does provide more evidence for co-dependence, with ‘joint expansion’ also possibly in mind. Well, whatever the intent, it’s arguably good that the military-civil link is now overt rather than hidden. But it does open up all sorts of strategic issues. 
 https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-uk-budget-pushes-nuclear-and-ccs.html

March 26, 2023 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Declassified Video Shows How B-52 Crews Would Conduct Nuclear Strikes During Cold War

The Aviationist March 26, 2023 STEFANO D’URSO

A 1960 Strategic Air Command training video familiarized B-52 crews with the devastating effects of nuclear weapons and how to navigate through a nuclear battlefield.

The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) recently declassified some very interesting training films and film reports that the Strategic Air Command prepared in the 1960s to prepare bomber pilots and crews for a potential nuclear war. Among these there is the United States Air Force Training Film 5363, “Nuclear Effects During SAC Delivery Missions,” made in 1960 and which kept its secret classification until now.

The purpose of Training Film 5363 was to familiarize SAC pilots and crew members with the devastating effects of nuclear weapons detonations and the detailed plans that were developed so the crews could evade the dangers of a nuclear battlefield and return home after completing their mission. These plans were among the contents of the “Combat Mission Folders,” which included guidance needed to reach targets and return to base safely and were assigned to each nuclear-armed bomber on alert duty.

…………………… The film begins with a B-52 flying a sortie of the Emergency War Order, launched under Positive Control and on its way to the “go/no-go” position, but without the crew knowing if this is a real mission or an exercise until they get there. Before eventually going in, however, the narrator explains that, while they know that the mission can be successfully accomplished as it was carefully planned and reviewed by highly qualified combat planners and they flew countless profile missions, they need to know the nuclear effects of a detonation.

The narrator then takes the viewers trough the basics of a nuclear detonation’s thermal, blast and radiation effects and the efforts that the U.S. Air Force had taken to prepare the crews for situations where they might experience them. In fact, the central part of the film covers the effects of nuclear explosions of both aircraft and crew and the measures taken to minimize crew exposure, like carefully planned routes that created a safe distance between the bomber and the detonation of their weapon and the detonations caused by other SAC bombers operating in the same area.

The film then returns to the B-52 approaching the turnaround point, when then a radio message from SAC comes in: “Sky King. Sky King. This is Migrate. This is Migrate. Do not answer. Break. Break. Alpha Sierra Foxtrot Juliet Oscar Papa Mike Tango. Break. Go-Code.” The crew scrambles to verify the code and discover that this is the go code for a real mission: “Pilot to crew. We checked the go code and verified it. This is it. We’re going in”.

After a very brief moment of disbelief, the crew members get down to business and prepare the aircraft for the nuclear strike mission as they are about to cross the H-Hour Control Line on the way to their assigned target in the Soviet Union. As they navigate towards the target, the crew experience the shockwave from another nuclear bomb dropped in the vicinity of their route, before a low-altitude flight over lakes, mountains, forests and fields to avoid Soviet air defense missiles…………………………………………………. more https://theaviationist.com/2023/03/26/declassified-video-shows-how-b-52-crews-would-conduct-cold-war-nuclear-strikes/

March 26, 2023 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Where the $1.3 Trillion Per Year U.S. Military Budget Goes

The Duran, by Eric Zuesse, March 24, 2023

Nobody can give a precise dollar-number to U.S. ‘Defense’ spending because the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department has never been able to pass an audit, and is by far the most corrupt of all federal Departments (and is the ONLY Department that has never passed an audit), and also because much of America’s military spending is being paid out from other federal Departments in order to keep down the published annual U.S. Government ‘Defense’ expenditure numbers (which come from ONLY the “U.S. ‘Defense’ Department). 

Those are expenditures for America’s privatized and overwhelmingly profit-driven Military-Industrial Complex. (By contrast: Russia and China require, by law, that their armaments-firms be majority-owned by the Government itself.)

According to the best available estimates, the U.S. Government has been spending, in total, for over a decade now, around $1.3T to $1.5T annually on ‘defense’, and this is around half of all military spending worldwide by all 200-or-so nations, and is more than half (around 53%) of all of the U.S. federal Government’s ‘discretionary’ (or congressionally voted for) annual expenditures.

Unlike regular manufacturers, which sell entirely or mainly to consumers and to businesses, not to their Government, armament-firms need to control their Government in order to control their markets (which are their Government and its ‘allied’ Governments — including NATO), and so they (in purely capitalist countries such as the U.S.) do control their Government. This is why the armaments-business (except in countries whose armaments-sector is socialized) is infamously corrupt. In order to hide the extent of that corruption (and to promote ever-higher military spending), the ‘news’-media need — in those countries — to be likewise effectively controlled by the investors in those firms.

Consequently, America, which has no national-security threat from any country (so, these astronomical ‘defense’-expenditures are blatantly inappropriate), spends annually around half of all of the money that the entire world spends on the military. And most of that money gets paid to its armaments-firms. Or, as Stephen Semler, an expert on these matters, put it regarding last year’s numbers, “How much of the $858 billion authorized by the FY2023 NDAA will be transferred to military contractors? I estimate $452 billion.”  ………………………………

If this had not been happening each year after the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, then the current U.S. federal debt would be far less, if any at all — but, in any case, that expense (which went, and is going, to exceptionally rich individuals) will be paid by future generations of Americans, by means of both increased taxes and reduced services from the U.S. Government. What pays for bombs (and funds the purchase of yachts) today will be taken from everyone’s infants tomorrow. And it is taking millions of lives in the targeted lands, and has been doing so for decades now. A psychopathic U.S. Government is producing these results………………………………………………………………………………………………

The presumption is that the voters don’t care, and that the ‘news’-media won’t enlighten the voters about this matter, and about how it impacts, for example, which nations the US will categorize as being an “ally,” to sell weapons to, and which nations it will categorize as being an “enemy,” to target for conquest………………………………………………….. more https://theduran.com/where-the-1-3-trillion-per-year-u-s-military-budget-goes/

March 26, 2023 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

In Australian conventional media, when it comes to discussion on AUKUS, only certain limited views are permissable.

Social media and independent news sites have had a significant effect on opening up the political debate over the AUKUS deal, writes Professor John Quiggin.

Social media and independent news sites have had a significant effect on opening up the political debate over the AUKUS deal, writes Professor John Quiggin.

Opening the Overton window. Independent Australia, by John Quiggin | 24 March 2023

ONE OF THE MOST useful ideas in thinking about political debate is that of the Overton window, named after American political scientist Joseph Overton. The Overton window is the range of ideas considered permissible in public discussion at any given time.

Overton’s crucial insight was that, while active participants in political debate could only take positions within the window of acceptable views, outside bodies like think tanks could help to shift it.

……………………………….The Overton window provides a way of thinking about current policy debate, particularly the treatment of the AUKUS deal by the mass media. At one end of the Overton window is the hyperbole of warmongers like Matthew Knott gushing that Australia is ‘no longer a middle power’ to the more cautious view that perhaps we should have had some public discussion before such a major change.

The mass media has been vigorous in policing even the slightest dissent within the political class, such as the questions raised, cautiously, by a handful of Labor backbenchers. It has responded with fury to criticism from those it can’t control like Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull. And, as usual, it has done its best to ignore criticism from outside the Overton window.

Although think tanks like the Australia Institute still play a role, the biggest challenge to the mainstream media’s role in policing debate has come from social and alternative media. The ease of communication through the internet is reflected in social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and more recently Mastodon, which have largely displaced older models of blogging. Equally important has been the proliferation of online magazines like Independent Australia and Crikey, and the rise of single-author newsletters distributed through Substack and Medium. 

At least regarding issues like AUKUS, there is an Overton window for social and alternative media. Almost all opinions are critical, with the dominant viewpoint being that the project is economically wasteful and puts Australia in danger of being dragged into war. The most positive views to be found on Twitter are “Labor inherited this from Morrison” and “cheer up, it will probably never happen”. The only point of contact with the political class Overton window is the view that we need to discuss this further.

Traditional mass media still has a greater reach than online alternatives. But it can no longer constrain debate within the Overton window defined by the political class. 

 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/opening-the-overton-window,17356?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

March 26, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

UN Rights Official Concerned Over Summary Executions Of POWs By Both Russia, Ukraine

March 25, 2023, By RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service

The United Nations has expressed deep concern over what it says were summary executions of prisoners of war (POWs) by both Russian and Ukrainian forces on the battlefield.

The head of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Matilda Bogner, said at a press conference in Kyiv on March 24 that her organization had recently recorded killings by both sides.

“We are deeply concerned about…summary execution of up to 25 Russian prisoners of war and persons [out of action because of injury] by the Ukrainian armed forces, which we have documented,” Bogner said.

This was often perpetrated immediately upon capture on the battlefield,” she said.

“While we are aware of ongoing investigations by Ukraine authorities into five cases involving 22 victims, we are not aware of any prosecution of the perpetrators,” she added.

Almost half of the 229 Russian prisoners of war interviewed by members of the mission claimed torture or ill-treatment, according to Bogner.

Bogner also expressed deep concern over the alleged executions of 15 Ukrainian prisoners by Russian armed forces after their capture. She said the Wagner mercenary group was responsible for 11 of those killings.

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry reacted to the report by thanking the UN mission for documenting violations of international law by Russia in the course of its aggression against Ukraine.

“At the same time, we consider it unacceptable to place responsibility on the victim of aggression. According to the UN Charter, Ukraine has the right to self-defense,” the ministry said…………………. https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-un-execution-prisoners/32333852.html—

March 26, 2023 Posted by | civil liberties, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Stolen Valor: The U.S. Volunteers in Ukraine Who Lie, Waste and Bicker

People who would not be allowed anywhere near the battlefield in a U.S.-led war are active on the Ukrainian front, with ready access to American weaponry.

By Justin Scheck and Thomas Gibbons-Neff, New York Times . Justin Scheck, an international investigative reporter, and Thomas Gibbons-Neff, the Ukraine correspondent, reported this article from Ukraine and around Europe.

March 25, 2023, 

They rushed to Ukraine by the thousands, many of them Americans who promised to bring military experience, money or supplies to the battleground of a righteous war. Hometown newspapers hailed their commitment, and donors backed them with millions of dollars.

Now, after a year of combat, many of these homespun groups of volunteers are fighting with themselves and undermining the war effort. Some have wasted money or stolen valor. Others have cloaked themselves in charity while also trying to profit off the war, records show.

One retired Marine lieutenant colonel from Virginia is the focus of a U.S. federal investigation into the potentially illegal export of military technology. A former Army soldier arrived in Ukraine only to turn traitor and defect to Russia. A Connecticut man who lied about his military service has posted live updates from the battlefield — including his exact location — and boasted about his easy access to American weaponry. A former construction worker is hatching a plan to use fake passports to smuggle in fighters from Pakistan and Iran.

And in one of the more curious entanglements, one of the largest volunteer groups is embroiled in a power struggle involving an Ohio man who falsely claimed to have been both a U.S. Marine and a LongHorn Steakhouse assistant manager. The dispute also involves a years-old incident on Australian reality TV.

Such characters have a place in Ukraine’s defense because of the arms-length role the United States has taken: The Biden administration sends weapons and money but not professional troops. That means people who would not be allowed anywhere near the battlefield in a U.S.-led war are active on the Ukrainian front — often with unchecked access to weapons and military equipment.

Many of the volunteers who hurried to Ukraine did so selflessly and acted with heroism. Some have lost their lives. Foreigners have rescued civilians, aided the wounded and fought ferociously alongside Ukrainians. Others raised money for crucial supplies.

But in Europe’s largest land war since 1945, the do-it-yourself approach does not discriminate between trained volunteers and those who lack the skills or discipline to assist effectively.

The New York Times reviewed more than 100 pages of documents from inside volunteer groups and interviewed more than 30 volunteers, fighters, fund-raisers, donors and American and Ukrainian officials. Some spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

The interviews and research reveal a series of deceptions, mistakes and squabbles that have hindered the volunteer drive that began after Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, when President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine called for help. “Every friend of Ukraine who wants to join Ukraine in defending the country, please come over,” he said. “We will give you weapons.”

Thousands answered the call. Some joined military groups like the International Legion, which Ukraine formed for foreign fighters. Others took roles in support or fund-raising. With Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, under attack, there was little time for vetting arrivals. So people with problematic pasts, including checkered or fabricated military records, became entrenched in the Legion and a constellation of other volunteer groups.

Asked about these problems, the Ukrainian military did not address specific issues but did say it was on guard because Russian agents regularly tried to infiltrate volunteer groups. “We investigated such cases and handed them over to law enforcement agencies,” said Andriy Cherniak, a representative for Ukrainian military intelligence.

‘A Million Lies’

One of the best-known Americans on the battlefield is James Vasquez. Days after the invasion, Mr. Vasquez, a Connecticut home-improvement contractor, announced he was leaving for Ukraine. His local newspaper told the tale of a former U.S. Army staff sergeant who left behind his job and family and picked up a rifle and a rucksack on the front line.

Since then, he has posted battlefield videos online, at least once broadcasting his unit’s precise location to everyone, including the enemy. He used his story to solicit donations. “I was in Kuwait during Desert Storm, and I was in Iraq after 9/11,” Mr. Vasquez said in a fund-raising video. He added, “This is a whole different animal.”

Mr. Vasquez, in fact, was never deployed to Kuwait, Iraq or anywhere else, a Pentagon spokeswoman said. He specialized in fuel and electrical repairs. And he left the Army Reserve not as a sergeant as he claimed, but as a private first class, one of the Army’s lowest ranks.

Still, Mr. Vasquez had easy access to weapons, including American rifles. Where did they come from? “I’m not exactly sure,” Mr. Vasquez said in a text message. The rifles, he added, were “brand-new, out of the box and we have plenty.” He also tweeted that he should not have to worry about international rules of war while in Ukraine.

He fought alongside Da Vinci’s Wolves, a Ukrainian far-right battalion, until this week, when The Times asked about his false military service claims. He immediately deactivated his Twitter account and said he might leave Ukraine because authorities discovered he was fighting without a required military contract.

Mr. Vasquez said he had been misrepresenting his military record for decades. He acknowledged being kicked out of the Army but would not talk publicly about why. “I had to tell a million lies to get ahead,” Mr. Vasquez said in an interview. “I didn’t realize it was going to come to this.”

Public Quarrels

The International Legion, hastily formed by the Ukrainian government, spent 10 minutes or less checking each volunteer’s background early in the war, one Legion official said. So a Polish fugitive who had been jailed in Ukraine for weapon violations got a position leading troops. Soldiers told The Kyiv Independent that he misappropriated supplies, harassed women and threatened his soldiers………………………………………………………………..

The dispute goes to the heart of who can be trusted to speak for and raise money for the Legion……………………………………………………………………………………….

Misdirected Donations

……………………………………………………………………….. Examples of wasted money in the hands of well-intentioned people are common. Mriya Aid, a group led by an active-duty Canadian lieutenant colonel, spent around $100,000 from donors on high-tech U.S.-style night-vision devices. They ended up being less-effective Chinese models, internal documents show…………………..

Earlier this year, the Mozart Group, which two former Marines established to help Ukraine, disbanded after one sued the other, alleging theft and harassment.

Absent Paper Trail

…………………………………………………………………………….. Colonel Rawlings has said that his group is awaiting American nonprofit status. But he has not revealed his spending or proof of a nonprofit application to The Times or to donors who have asked. So it is not clear where the money is going. “I believed these guys,” said Shaun Stants, who said he organized a fund-raiser in October in Pittsburgh but was never shown the financial records he asked for. “And they took me for a fool.”

Corporate records in Poland and the U.S. show that Colonel Rawlings also started a for-profit company called Iron Forge. In an interview, he said he expected his charity and others to pay Iron Forge for transportation, meaning donor money would be used to finance his private venture. 

But he said no conflict of interest existed because Iron Forge would ultimately send money back to the charities. Details are being worked out, he said.

In the days after The Times approached Mr. Vasquez and others, members of the squabbling groups — Ripley’s, the Legion, the dissident Legion members and more — escalated their feud. They accused one another of misappropriating funds and lying about their credentials…………..

Najim Rahim contributed reporting from Berkeley, Calif., and Maria Varenikova and Daria Mitiuk from Kyiv, Ukraine.
 https://archive.is/VR4ge#selection-1457.0-1457.114

March 26, 2023 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Burning down the house — Climate options are available now. Nuclear power isn’t one of them

https://youtube.com/watch?v=RjsLm5PCdVQ%3Fversion%3D3%26rel%3D1%26showsearch%3D0%26showinfo%3D1%26iv_load_policy%3D1%26fs%3D1%26hl%3Den%26autohide%3D2%26wmode%3Dtransparent

Our climate needs a fire hose. Our government is bringing buckets

Burning down the house — Beyond Nuclear International

Climate options are available now. Nuclear power isn’t one of them

By Linda Pentz Gunter

In 2019 at the Davos World Economic Forum, youth climate leader, Greta Thunberg, then only 16, warned the audience in a quiet and measured voice that addressing the climate crisis involved a solution “so simple that even a small child can understand it. We have to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases.”

In closing, she said: “Adults keep saying we owe it to the young people to give them hope. But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house was on fire. Because it is.”

On March 12, 2023, the Biden administration announced that it had approved oil and gas drilling in Arctic Alaska, retaining the United States’s vaunted position, alongside China and India, as one of the world’s leading arsonists.

As the UK daily, The Guardian reported of that decision: “The ConocoPhillips Willow project will be one of the largest of its kind on US soil, involving drilling for oil and gas at three sites for multiple decades on the 23m-acre National Petroleum Reserve which is owned by the federal government and is the largest tract of undisturbed public land in the US.”

The US government’s lame excuse for approving the drilling project was that it had few legal options, given Conoco-Phillips holds lease rites to the land dating back decades.

So sue. The house is on fire. Tying the project up in the law courts would have bought us time. Green-lighting new oil and gas drilling is tone deafness to a crisis that has gone beyond the tipping point. 

This was confirmed, yet again, days later, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023, the final part of its mammoth Sixth Assessment Report. It came replete with even more dire warnings than in previous AR6 reports, which should already have been panic-inducing enough for the world to wake up and understand that we cannot drill for a single more drop of oil. Ever. Period.

This time, the scientists who co-authored the AR6 Synthesis Report called it their “final warning.” However, in their press release announcing the report, the authors tried to take the high road, insisting that “There are multiple, feasible and effective options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to human-caused climate change, and they are available now”.

None of those options includes nuclear power, according to the IPCC scientists, which never mentions ‘nuclear’ once in the report narrative. It appears only in a single graph (below on original)) to illustrate its lack of applicability to addressing the climate crisis…………………………………………..

IPCC Chair, Hoesung Lee, said: “This Synthesis Report underscores the urgency of taking more ambitious action and shows that, if we act now, we can still secure a liveable sustainable future for all.”

If we act now. Like we didn’t after Thunberg’s words of warning in 2019. Like the Biden administration didn’t last week. What’s left is the largely empty rhetoric of hope, but no signs of panic.

This lack of urgency is compounded by a failure in the media to put the climate emergency on the front page with regularity. The given reason is that it’s not what their readers are interested in, a complete abdication of responsibility to inform, educate, and in the case of the climate crisis, to inflame passion and a demand for action. And there is also, in the US at least, and as we wrote last week, a lamentable adherence to an outdated formula that relegates the voices of right and reason to the back of the quote queue.

This was no better (or should that be worse) exemplified than by the two days of coverage about the Alaskan Willow project in The Washington Post, which never once in either story quoted anyone from the Indigenous Alaskan population bitterly opposed to the drilling. 

…………………………………………………… we still aren’t seeing the outrage where it really matters. We are still confronting deniers. And our governments are not taking the climate crisis nearly seriously enough. Instead of rushing for the fire hoses, they are bringing buckets.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and curates Beyond Nuclear International.  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/03/26/burning-down-the-house/

March 26, 2023 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

Poland’s prime minister boasted of “very good compensation” from the European Union for Polish weapons sent to Ukraine

https://en.topwar.ru/213555-premer-ministr-polshi-pohvastal-ochen-horoshej-kompensaciej-ot-evrosojuza-za-otpravljaemoe-na-ukrainu-polskoe-oruzhie.html 25 Mar 23
The European Union will thank Poland for the supply of weapons to the Kyiv regime. This was stated by Prime Minister of Poland Mateusz Morawiecki, speaking to reporters following the results of the EU summit in Brussels.

Morawiecki noted that Warsaw is waiting for “very good compensation” for playing one of the leading roles in supplying Ukraine with a variety of weapons and military equipment. Earlier, by the way, the Polish leadership proudly stated that Poland is in second place after the United States in the list of countries providing military assistance to Ukraine.

The Polish Prime Minister also announced the amount of compensation from the EU authorities. According to him, even before Easter, Warsaw will receive 300 million euros, and then “another” 500-600 million euros. Thus, one of the key allies of the Kiev regime does not hide the financial interest in military assistance to Ukraine, and therefore in the further continuation of the Ukrainian conflict, at least in its current form.

According to Morawiecki, Warsaw will become the largest recipient of funds from the European Peace Fund in the coming months. The Polish government will be able to spend this money on the needs of ensuring the security and defense of Poland itself. For example, it is planned to acquire modern weapons of American and European production for the Polish Army, as well as to create, develop and improve their own lines for the production of weapons, military equipment and ammunition, the head of the Polish Cabinet of Ministers emphasized.

Note that Russia negatively assesses the transfer of military equipment and weapons to Ukraine by the West. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation has repeatedly warned the West that “weapon tranches” only entail a further escalation of the armed conflict.

March 26, 2023 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Will Scotland’s next Chief Minister heed the warnings of Dounreay?

25 Mar 23,  https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23411771.will-next-fm-heed-warnings-dounreay/ DEAR Ms Forbes, Ms Regan and Mr Yousaf,

Please tell me if you will honour the current SNP commitment against any new nuclear energy production in Scotland.

I am asking you about this because Scotland is already paying a terrible price for being chosen as the UK’s remote and expendable area for experiments with nuclear technology and nuclear waste dumping.

In 1986, during the EDRP Public Inquiry in Caithness, the UK Atomic Energy Authority was forced to release documents which showed that highly radioactive, potentially lethal fragments of nuclear-spent fuel had been dumped on beaches and on the seabed at Dounreay.

These fragments were first discussed with shop stewards at Dounreay in 1983. At that first discussion, the shop stewards were warned not to share the information “to avoid public panic”. Most of the workforce at Dounreay were in any case bound by the Official Secrets Act. The public inquiry nevertheless encouraged some of these workers to share more information about appalling incidents within their community – caused directly by the nuclear industry.

Forty years later, those lethal fragments of nuclear-spent fuel are still there – the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has confirmed that they are irretrievable. The awful legacies of nuclear mistakes at Dounreay also include large tracts of land which will not be safe to use – in any way – for at least 300 years. Nuclear mistakes continue throughout the world, including to this day at Dounreay and at Windscale/ Sellafield.

It is important that your generation of political leaders is made aware of this awful history: it is now your responsibility to avoid such mistakes and to protect the wellbeing of Scotland’s land, sea and people.

With its new policy of “Great British Nuclear”, the Westminster Tory government is defying the findings of the 1976 report on “Nuclear Power and the Environment” by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. It advised that no further development of nuclear power should be made until a safe method of nuclear waste was confirmed. No such method has been found.

More worryingly, that same Westminster government is currently attempting to evade international treaties which ban the dumping of nuclear waste in international waters – by working towards a nuclear dump in the Irish Sea off Dumfries, Galloway and Cumbrian coasts.

I would appreciate a prompt reply.

Frances McKie

Evanton, Ross-shire

March 26, 2023 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

March 26 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “We Won’t Act On Climate Change Until Our Comfortable Lives Are Threatened – And That Day Is Coming” • The IPCC’s latest climate report stopped some of us in our tracks because there are many warnings about our heating planet and escalating climate breakdown, and each new one is a reminder that we’re […]

March 26 Energy News — geoharvey

March 26, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Baltic to Black Sea: NATO deploys Portuguese, Romanian F-16s to Russian border — Anti-bellum

NATOAllied Air CommandMarch 23, 2023 Portugal and Romania are incoming to Lithuania for their Baltic Air Policing rotation Portugal and Romania are the Allies lined up to take over Baltic Air Policing duties safeguarding and protecting Allies air space and ensuring the safety for all air users. “BAP deployments demonstrate a unified Alliance and the […]

Baltic to Black Sea: NATO deploys Portuguese, Romanian F-16s to Russian border — Anti-bellum

March 26, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries