“Without civilian nuclear energy there is no military use of this technology — and without military use there is no civilian nuclear energy,” admitted French President Emmanuel Macron in 2019. No surprise then, that France is investing billions in SMR technology.
If you didn’t know better, you’d think Lloyd Marbet was a dairy farmer or maybe a retired shop teacher. His beard is thick, soft, and gray, his hair pulled back in a small ponytail. In his mid-seventies, he still towers over nearly everyone. His handshake is firm, but there’s nothing menacing about him. He lumbers around like a wise, old hobbling tortoise.
We’re standing in the deco lobby of the historic Kiggins Theater in downtown Vancouver, Washington, about to view a screening of Atomic Bamboozle, a remarkable new documentary by filmmaker Jan Haaken that examines the latest push for atomic power and a nuclear “renaissance” in the Pacific Northwest. Lloyd, a Vietnam veteran, is something of an environmental folk hero in these parts, having led the early 1990s effort to shut down Oregon’s infamous Trojan Nuclear Plant. He’s also one of the unassuming stars of a film that highlights his critical role in that successful Trojan takedown and his continued opposition to nuclear technology.
I’ve always considered Lloyd an optimist, but this evening I sense a bit of trepidation.
“It concerns me greatly that this fight isn’t over yet,” he tells me in his deep baritone. He’s been at this for years and now helps direct the Oregon Conservancy Foundation, which promotes renewable energy, even as he continues to oppose nuclear power. “We learned a lot from Trojan, but that was a long time ago and this is a new era, and many people aren’t aware of the history of nuclear power and the anti-nuclear movement.”
The new push for atomic energy in the Pacific Northwest isn’t just coming from the well-funded nuclear industry, their boosters at the Department of Energy, or billionaires like Bill Gates. It’s also echoing in the mainstream environmental movement among those who increasingly view the technology as a potential climate savior.
In a recent interview with ABC News, Bill Gates couldn’t have been more candid about why he’s embraced the technology of so-called small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs. “Nuclear energy, if we do it right, will help us solve our climate goals,” he claimed. As it happens, he’s also invested heavily in an “advanced” nuclear power start-up company, TerraPower, based up in Bellevue, Washington, which is hoping to build a small 345-megawatt atomic power reactor in rural Kemmerer, Wyoming.
The nuclear industry is banking on a revival and placing its bets on SMRs like those proposed by the Portland, Oregon-based NuScale Power Corporation, whose novel 60-megawatt SMR design was approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2022. While the underlying physics is the same as all nuclear power plants, SMRs are easier to build and safer to run than the previous generation of nuclear facilities — or so go the claims of those looking to profit from them.
NuScale’s design acceptance was a first in this country where 21 SMRs are now in the development stage. Such facilities are being billed as innovative alternatives to the hulking commercial reactors that average one gigawatt of power output per year and take decades and billions of dollarsto construct. If SMRs can be brought online quickly, their sponsors claim, they will help mitigate carbon emissions because nuclear power is a zero-emissions energy source.
Never mind that it’s not, since nuclear power plants produce significant greenhouse gas emissions from uranium mining to plant construction to waste disposal. Life cycle analyses of carbon emissions from different energy sources find that, when every stage is taken into account, nuclear energy actually has a carbon footprint similar to, if not larger than, natural gas plants, almost double that of wind energy, and significantly more than solar power.
“SMRs are no longer an abstract concept,” Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Kathryn Huff, a leading nuclear advocate who has the ear of the Biden administration, insisted. “They are real and they are ready for deployment thanks to the hard work of NuScale, the university community, our national labs, industry partners, and the NRC. This is innovation at its finest and we are just getting started here in the U.S.!”
A Risky (and Expensive) Business
Even though Huff claims that SMRs are “ready for deployment,” that’s hardly the case. NuScale’s initial SMR design, under development in Idaho, won’t actually be operable until at least 2029 after clearing more NRC regulatory hurdles. The scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are already calling for fossil-fuel use to be cut by two-thirds over the next 10 years to transition away from carbon-intensive energy, a schedule that, if kept, such small reactors won’t be able to speed up.
And keep in mind that the seemingly prohibitive costs of the SMRs are a distinct problem. NuScale’s original estimate of $55-$58 per megawatt-hour for a proposed project in Utah — already higher than wind and solar which come in at around $50 per megawatt-hour — has recently skyrocketed to $89 per megawatt-hour. And that’s after a $4 billion investment in such energy by U.S. taxpayers, which will cover 43% of the cost of the construction of such plants. This is based on strikingly rosy, if not unrealistic, projections. After all, nuclear power in the U.S. currently averages around $373 per megawatt-hour.
And as the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis put it:
“[N]o one should fool themselves into believing this will be the last cost increase for the NuScale/UAMPS SMR. The project still needs to go through additional design, licensing by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, construction, and pre-operational testing. The experience of other reactors has repeatedly shown that further significant cost increases and substantial schedule delays should be anticipated at any stages of project development.”
Here in the Pacific Northwest, NuScale faces an additional obstacle that couldn’t be more important: What will it do with all the noxious waste such SMRs are certain to produce? In 1980, Oregon voters overwhelmingly passed Measure 7, a landmark ballot initiative that halted the construction of new nuclear power plants until the federal government established a permanent site to store spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste. Also included in Measure 7 was a provision that made all new Oregon nuclear plants subject to voter approval. Forty-three years later, no such repository for nuclear waste exists anywhere in the United States, which has prompted corporate lobbyists for the nuclear industry to push several bills that would essentially repeal that Oregon law.
NuScale, no fan of Measure 7, has decided to circumvent it by building its SMRs across the Columbia River in Washington, a state with fewer restrictions. There, Clark County is, in its own fashion, beckoning the industry by putting $200,000 into a feasibility study to see if SMRs could “benefit the region.” There’s another reason NuScale is eyeing the Columbia River corridor: its plants will need water. Like all commercial nuclear facilities, SMRs must be kept cool so they don’t overheat and melt down, creating little Chernobyls. In fact, being “light-water” reactors, the company’s SMRs will require a continuous water supply to operate correctly.
Like other nuclear reactors, SMRs will utilize fission to make heat, which in turn will be used to generate electricity. In the process, they will also produce a striking amount of waste, which may be even more challenging to deal with than the waste from traditional reactors. At the moment, NuScale hopes to store the nasty stuff alongside the gunk that the Trojan Nuclear Plant produces in big dry casks by the Columbia River in Oregon, near the Pacific Ocean.
As with all the waste housed at various nuclear sites nationwide, Trojan’s casks are anything but a permanent solution to the problem of such waste. After all, plutonium garbage will be radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Typically enough, even though it’s no longer operating, Trojan still remains a significant risk as it sits near the Cascadia Subduction Zone, where a “megathrust” earthquake is expected someday to violently shake the region and drown it in a gigantic flood of seawater. If that were to happen, much of Oregon’s coastline would be devastated, including the casks holding Trojan’s deadly rubbish. The last big quake of this sort hit the area more than 300 years ago, but it’s just a matter of time before another Big One strikes — undoubtedly, while the radioactive waste in those dry casks is still life-threatening.
Nuclear expert M. V. Ramana, a soft-spoken but authoritative voice in Jan Haaken’s Atomic Bamboozle documentary, put it this way to me:
“The industry’s plans for SMR waste are no different from their plans for radioactive waste from older reactors, which is to say that they want to find some suitable location and a community that is willing to accept the risk of future contamination and bury the waste underground.
“But there is a catch [with SMR’s waste]. Some of these proposed SMR designs use fuel with materials that are chemically difficult to deal with. The sodium-cooled reactor design proposed by Bill Gates would have to figure out how to manage the sodium. Because sodium does not behave well in the presence of water and all repositories face the possibility of water seeping into them, the radioactive waste generated by such designs would have to be processed to remove the sodium. This is unlike the fleet of reactors [currently in operation].”
Other troubles exist, too, explains Ramana. One, in particular, is deeply concerning: the waste from SMRs, like the waste produced in all nuclear plants, could lead to the proliferation of yet more atomic weaponry.
Nuclear Hot Links
As the pro-military Atlantic Council explained in a 2019 report on the deep ties between nuclear power and nuclear weapons in this country:
“The civilian nuclear power sector plays a crucial role in supporting U.S. national security goals. The connectivity of the civilian and military nuclear value chain — including shared equipment, services, and human capital — has created a mutually reinforcing feedback loop, wherein a robust civilian nuclear industry supports the nuclear elements of the national security establishment.”
In fact, governments globally, from France to Pakistan, the United States to China, have a strategic incentive to keep tabs on their nuclear energy sectors, not just for potential accidents but because nuclear waste can be utilized in making nuclear weapons.
Spent fuel, or the waste that’s left over from the fission process, comes out scalding hot and highly radioactive. It must be quickly cooled in pools of water to avoid the possibility of a radioactive meltdown. Since the U.S. has no repository for spent fuel, all this waste has to stay put — first in pools for at least a year or more and then in dry casks where air must be constantly circulated to keep the spent fuel from causing mayhem.
The United States already has a troubling and complicated nuclear-waste problem, which worsens by the day. Annually, the U.S. produces 88,000 metric tons of spent fuel from its commercial nuclear reactors. With the present push to build more plants, including SMRs, spent fuel will only be on the rise. Worse yet, as Ramana points out, SMRs are going to produce more of this incendiary waste per unit of electricity because they will prove less efficient than larger reactors. And therein lies the problem, not just because the amount of radioactive waste the country doesn’t truly know how to deal with will increase, but because more waste means more fuel for nukes.
As Ramana explains:
“When uranium fuel is irradiated in a reactor, the uranium-238 isotope absorbs neutrons and [transmutes] into plutonium-239. This plutonium is in the spent fuel that is discharged by the reactor but can be separated from the rest of the uranium and other chemicals in the irradiated fuel through a chemical process called reprocessing. Once it is separated, plutonium can be used in nuclear weapons. Even though there are technical differences between different kinds of nuclear reactors, all reactors, including SMRs, can be used to make nuclear weapons materials… Any country that acquires a nuclear reactor automatically enhances its ability to make nuclear weapons. Whether it does so or not is a matter of choice.”
Ramana is concerned for good reason. France, as he points out, has Europe’s largest arsenal of nuclear warheads, and its atomic weapons industry is deeply tied to its “peaceful” nuclear energy production. “Without civilian nuclear energy there is no military use of this technology — and without military use there is no civilian nuclear energy,” admitted French President Emmanuel Macron in 2019. No surprise then, that France is investing billions in SMR technology. After all, many SMR designs require enriched uranium and plutonium to operate, and the facilities that produce materials for SMRs can also be reconfigured to produce fuel for nuclear weapons. Put another way, the more countries that possess this technology, the more that will have the ability to manufacture atomic bombs.
As the credits rolled on Atomic Bamboozle, I glanced around the packed theater. I instantly sensed the shock felt by movie-goers who had no idea nuclear power was priming for a comeback in the Northwest. Lloyd Marbet, arms crossed, was seated at the back of the theater, looking calmer than most. Still, I knew he was eager to lead the fight to stop SMRs from reaching the shores of the nearby Columbia River and would infuse a younger generation with a passion to resist the nuclear-industrial complex he’s been challenging for decades.
“Can you believe we’re fighting this shit all over again?” he asked me later with his usual sense of urgency and outrage. “We’ve beat them before and you can damn well bet we’ll do it again.”
Nuclear catastrophe is unacceptable. The U.S. set a global precedent of carelessness surrounding environmental degradation, creating a nuclear nightmare. Though highly contested, Japan plans to dump over a million tons of radioactive waste into the ocean. Robert Richmond, a biologist at the University of Hawaii, shared with NPR that scientists agree the resulting exposure could potentially damage the DNA of marine life.
“We are unanimous in our view that this has not been proven to be safe,” Richmond said. While the plan is approved by the UN’s nuclear watchdog, activists and scientists don’t believe there is enough evidence that the waste isn’t harmful. These regulations are just for show if scientists “unanimously” agree they aren’t well-founded.
The pro-nuclear argument for nearly unlimited energy neglects the present reality that humanity must simply consume less of everything. HEAL Utah, Living Rivers and Uranium Watch stand together against water-hungry nuclear projects in Utah. If we want a lasting and safe energy revolution, we must not engage in nuclear projects, which inevitably degrade local life.
Energy Colonialism
Roger Renteria, a Chicano scholar pursuing his Ph.D. in sociology, offered insight into local environmental degradation. He detailed uranium extraction affecting Indigenous communities, specifically the Navajo Nation.
“[Extraction is] deeply tied into colonialism and the wastelanding of Indigenous spaces and Indigenous people,” Renteria said, describing the process as “energy colonialism.”
From nuclear testing in the Pacific to the targeted destruction of nuclear installations, those in authority prioritize power and also profit. Endless imperial expansion is a logic of conquest and colonization — a desire for endless consumption creates a psychological illness of retention.
Mega-exploiters weaponize these desires against people to blind them to long-term ecological destruction. Today, the uber-wealthy are killing off Indigenous and working-class people for the sake of conveniences made possible by nuclear energy. The most privileged are imposing these ethical responsibilities onto the most vulnerable.
Wastelanding
“We try to separate humanity from the environment, but we are the environment, as well,” Renteria said.
Radioactive waste is already being sent to Utah and the lack of effective regulations surrounding it is already affecting our Indigenous First People. If we wasteland Indigenous spaces, we wasteland Indigenous people. We must not accept this blatant disregard for our communities as the norm.
Utah considers nuclear power to be a potential solution to address climate change. First People downstream from us are the most likely to be impacted by nuclear power. We must not cave to new nuclear installations: nuclear energy is not “clean,” though many believe it to be.
Uranium ore is an essential product for nuclear reactors. Both mining and refining uranium are major environmental concerns because they produce radioactive waste. Uranium mill tailings and spent reactor fuel remain radioactive for thousands of years and become more radioactive as they decay. A reduction in carbon emissions is not always a reduction in environmental cost.
Utah doesn’t have any nuclear facilities that produce the waste it is tasked with maintaining. Even low-level waste requires large amounts of land that become entirely unusable for the foreseeable future. Importation of radioactive waste to Indigenous territories across the American West elevates this problem from environmental degradation to environmental racism.
Waste sites with unregulated disposal practices are often near Indigenous communities. Ongoing protests challenge this environmental racism contributing to the uptick of cancer cases in the Ute Nation near the White Mesa Mill. The nuclear industry targets communities that have no control over their landscape or can’t turn down the money offered for their land rights.
Renteria shared about a case in Monticello, UT where women from the Navajo Nation experienced increased rates of breast cancer. Their families were devastated by the nuclear industry because the men who worked in nearby uranium mines exposed their households to radiation. This tragedy urgently points to the fact that intimacy should never kill, but we have created a world where it can.
Environmental Racism Resistance
“Future generations will have to deal with the effects of radioactive waste,” Renteria said. He emphasized the cascade of harm that our settler nation has already inflicted on Indigenous people. He added when we layer on waste, we only offer “violence to the folks who feel it transgenerationally.” The U.S. government already refuses to take responsibility for Indigenous water rights: protecting commercial interests is of greater importance than clean water for the Navajo Nation, as demonstrated in a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Renteria said First People would benefit from a seat at the table, while acknowledging the present systems of power are not adequately fit to incorporate their voices. “You get damned in terms of limited access to the table, and then when you get access, you get damned by those dismissing [Indigenous] information and knowledge,” Renteria said. Settler culture otherizes Indigenous ways of knowing. The inability of capitalism to mesh with sustainable existence points to our society’s active refusal to prioritize human well-being.
Collectively
We as a collective must consume less energy, clothing and water. But the most privileged both consume and waste the most. The wealthiest consume up to a million times more energy than the less privileged. It is for this reason that we must oppose projects that further enrich the wealthy. Stand with your fellow humans in efforts that urge for a more equitable distribution of wealth, like workers’ unions.
Renteria noted that Indigenous people face a “lack of political power because the political system doesn’t truly value them.” He said that we face environmental destruction because of “human activity within a specific system,” featuring cogs of capitalism, energy colonialism and wastelanding.
The plastics industry promotes recycling to shift the blame for ecological impact onto consumers and keep plastic in production. The petroleum industry invented the concept of “carbon footprint” to shift responsibility for pollution onto the consumer. Our response to corporate deflection must be to demand accountability for the harm being imposed on our planet and our bodies.
For a better and more sustainable way of life, we must first invest in a lifestyle change. The consumerist tendency to buy first and repent for ecological destruction later must go. We are not in a confession booth. The impact of our energy choices can’t be wished away once we realize capitalistic endeavors have been prioritized over human well-being. Any nuclear waste is too much nuclear waste.
The choice to change the way we see energy must take place before the point of environmental collapse. We must not seek to sustain the unsustainable.
Rather than increasing energy efficiency and productivity and reducing the need for new energy resources, the province has chosen nuclear expansion.
The Star, By Mark Winfield , Friday, July 21, 2023
The consequences of these decisions for Ontario electricity ratepayers and taxpayers are likely to stretch far into the future. No cost estimates are available for the proposed nuclear projects. The bids submitted as part of the province’s last attempt at a new-build nuclear project would optimistically suggest costs in the range of $50 billion for the Bruce project alone. The costs of the four smaller reactors proposed for Darlington remain unknown, given that none of the proposed type of reactor have ever been built or operated before anywhere in the world.
………………………………………. private capital has been hesitant to engage with nuclear projects, and progress on a much-touted nuclear “renaissance” in Europe and North America has been slow. This has been despite aggressive efforts by governments to guarantee returns on investment and assume ultimate liability for waste management, decommissioning costs and accidents. It is no surprise that the only significant investor in the first of the proposed new “small” reactors at Darlington was the federal government’s own Infrastructure Bank.
A rational planning process around electricity and decarbonization would have prioritized the options with the lowest economic, environmental, technological and safety risks first. Higher risk options, like new nuclear, should only be considered where it can be demonstrated that the lower-risk options have been fully optimized and developed in the planning process.
…………………………….. The good news is that the province’s announcements remain at a preliminary stage — key technical approvals for new build reactor projects will still be needed and their economics remain very open questions. There may still be time for Ontario to move toward a more rational, open, and evidence-based approach to energy planning and decarbonization. But nuclear proponents will be doing everything they can to lock in the government’s choices as quickly as possible. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/ontario-opts-for-high-risk-nuclear-over-low-risk-energy-sources/article_49afb2a3-7cca-5dee-bc2b-5d57eef76a75.html
France and Germany lead the camps in disagreeing on the future of nuclear in Europe. Camille Lafrance and Benjamin Wehrmann at CLEW take a deep dive into the reasons why, quoting experts and politicians. Germany’s vision of a fully renewables-based EU is at odds with France’s unwavering support for low-carbon nuclear energy. European-wide agreement on targets matter because they drive future investment in the targeted technologies and the design of Europe’s grid, markets, policies, budgets and all the rest. A nuclear-light renewables-heavy Europe will look very different from one where nuclear baseload sits robustly within the cross-border market. And a major concern is that more nuclear means less renewables, at a time when wind and solar need all the scale they can get. Yet nuclear is fossil-free too, and France has the lowest emissions per head of any rich country. If agreement cannot be met, can Europe meet its decarbonisation goals? Time is running out.
The role of nuclear power in Europe’s transition away from fossil fuels has been a point of contention between French and German governments for a long time. In the year 2000, Germany decided to phase out nuclear energy and, despite temporarily backtracking on its decision before the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, ultimately completed its nuclear exit in April 2023.
France, on the other hand, has the highest share of nuclear in the energy mix of any country in the world and, despite temporarily considering to radically cut its reliance on nuclear power after Fukushima, has committed to building many new reactors as part of its bid to meet European climate targets and net-zero emissions by 2050.
…………………. disputes about nuclear energy between France and Germany come with major implications for the strategic positioning on energy and climate policy of the whole EU.
…………………………………… …Nuclear safety
And also nuclear safety concerns continue to occupy experts in France as much as anywhere. In mid-2023, 800 French scientists warned against the risks of the country’s new nuclear programme, pointing to unresolved questions of radioactive waste management, which remain largely unresolved in most of the EU, including in France. The scientists also warned against risks of accidental contamination or meltdown.
…Prices, costs
Securing funding from Brussels for the major buildout is regarded as a substantial challenge to France’s plans.
In France, investments in renewable energy have been on the rise since 2016, as costs have gone down. According to data by U.S. investment bank Lazar, prices per megawatt hour (MWh) produced with renewables have dropped dramatically between 2009 and 2019 alone, while that of nuclear power went up. Solar power generation costs dropped nearly 90 percent to 40 dollars per MWh and onshore wind 70 percent to 41 dollars per MWh. Nuclear power costs per unit in the same decade increased 26 percent to 155 dollars per MWh. Meanwhile, nuclear power construction costs have risen, while future EPR costs are still uncertain. The sharp rise in interest rates has made building new nuclear plants even more expensive, compounded by reactor construction delays. Nuclear plant operator Electricite de France estimated the cost to be at least 51 billion euros. A convincing policy framework allowing Paris to classify the nuclear bill as an investment in the EU Green Deal could thus send and important signal to potential nuclear power investors.
France also pushed to include nuclear energy in the EU’sRenewable Energy Directive (RED), a target it achieved after protracted negotiations that saw the country form a ‘nuclear alliance’ with sympathetic governments and in opposition to Germany’s insistence on limiting funding to renewable power installations. The French energy minister, Agnes Pannier-Runacher, in mid-2023 said it was “regrettable that Germany is applying the brake” on reforms that enhance nuclear power’s role, arguing this would fail to take the position of a majority of EU countries into account.
Germany’s priorities largely in line with international trends
But the lack of a shared vision extends beyond the bilateral relationship of France and Germany. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared in spring 2023 that nuclear power was not a ‘strategic’ technology in reaching the EU’s climate goals. Nevertheless, the technology remains at the heart of many debates at the European level. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://energypost.eu/does-nuclear-slow-down-the-scale-up-of-wind-and-solar-france-and-germany-cant-agree/
ABP News Bureau, 2023-07-23 North Indian states are reeling under severe monsoon mayhem as roads are flooded, rivers are flowing over the danger mark, and waterlogging is hindering all kinds of commute leaving residents helpless. After wreaking havoc in the hill states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, heavy showers in Maharashtra, and Gujarat have created a flood-like situation in the two states. Meanwhile, a cloudburst in Ladakh and a fresh spell of rain in Uttarakhand have raised the threat of a rise in the water level again in Delhi which has witnessed the worst flooding since 1978. Here are the latest updates on monsoon fury from across the country:
Governor Sergey Aksyonov has ordered a mass evacuation from the danger zone
A Ukrainian drone strike has resulted in an explosion at an ammunition depot in the central part of the Crimean peninsula, local Governor Sergey Aksyonov said on Saturday. According to preliminary information, the incident has not resulted in any casualties, he added.
Writing on Telegram, Aksyonov said the detonation had taken place in the Krasnogvardeysky district. “A decision has been made to evacuate the population within a 5km radius from the site of the emergency and place them in temporary accommodation facilities,” he added.
The governor stated that the authorities had also suspended rail traffic in the area in order to “minimize risks,” while expressing hope that the emergency would be dealt with quickly.
The Ukrainian Armed Forces have confirmed the strikes, claiming that they “had destroyed an oil depot and Russian military warehouses” in the area.
Crimea has repeatedly been targeted by Ukrainian drone and missile attacks since Moscow launched its military operation against Kiev over a year ago. On Thursday, Aksyonov said a Ukrainian UAV raid on the peninsula had killed a teenage girl and damaged several administrative buildings.
Earlier this week, a sea drone strike on the Crimean Bridge – which Russia called a Ukrainian terrorist attack – damaged one section of the roadway and claimed the lives of a married couple from Belgorod Region, as well as injuring their 14-year-old daughter.
Kiev stopped short of claiming responsibility, but celebrated the incident, while Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky later called the bridge a legitimate military target.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has condemned the raid as a “terrorist attack” that was pointless from a military standpoint, adding that the bridge has not been used for transporting military materials for a long time. In the aftermath of the incident, Moscow launched several “retaliatory strikes” on targets in Ukrainian port cities.
EDF will need to invest around 25 billion euros ($28 billion) each year to keep its nuclear fleet and network in shape and build new reactors required for France’s energy transition, the company’s CEO said on Wednesday.
Grilled by lawmakers during a hearing before the French National Assembly’s economic affairs committee, EDF’s Luc Remont said France also needed to rethink parts of the company’s business model and its electricity tariff policy to allow the utility to boost investments.
Hong Kong has started strengthening radiation inspections of seafood imports from Japan, sources said Saturday, amid concerns in China over a plan to discharge treated radioactive water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean. The tighter inspections started in mid-June and customs clearance of Japanese seafood was delayed by about three hours compared with earlier clearance times.
Hong Kong on Friday reiterated its concerns over the water plan. The Japanese government has confirmed that some shipments of Japanese seafood have been held up at China’s customs. Hong Kong is Japan’s second-largest market for agricultural and fisheries exports, while mainland China is its biggest.
Warsaw is looking to take control over western parts of Ukraine, the Russian president claims
Polish leaders are planning to form a NATO-backed coalition to intervene in the Ukraine conflict and take over parts of western Ukraine as well as, possibly, Belarus, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on Friday.
Speaking at a meeting with permanent members of Russia’s Security Council, Putin said the government in Kiev is willing to go to any lengths to stay in power, including selling out its own people and handing over Ukrainian territories to “foreign owners.”
The first in line, according to the Russian president, are the Poles, who he claimed “probably expect to form some kind of coalition under the ‘NATO umbrella’ and directly intervene in the conflict in Ukraine, in order to then ‘tear off’ a bigger piece for themselves, to regain, as they believe, their historical territories – today’s western Ukraine.”……………………………………………….. more https://www.rt.com/russia/580080-poland-western-ukraine-putin/
While noting the opposition of SNP committee members to Trident, the report said MPs recogised the “serious implications for the UK and Nato should the nuclear fleet ever be removed from Faslane”.
The report, which focused on the strategic importance of Scotland’s geography in light of perceived threats from China and Russia, also made the case for “devolved diplomacy from Edinburgh”.
Lynn Jamieson, chair of the Scottish CND, told the Morning Star: “It focuses on capacity for war fighting backed by nuclear threat, not collaboration to build peace, to strengthen international law and to mitigate climate change.
“Scotland is a ‘physical asset’ with military hardware and space for more and bigger bases.
“The nuclear weapons Scottish people did not vote to host are taken for granted.
“Their existential threat to the world and their everyday risks and harms in Scotland are ignored.
Former chair of UK CND and Alba Party member Marjorie Thompson said: “This report is the complete opposite of what the Scottish independence movement should be advocating, never mind actively promoting on behalf of the UK Parliament and Government.
“The national movement of Scotland has a proud anti-war tradition and has been at the forefront of the disarmament movement.
“All pro-independence parties should distance themselves from this report and ensure that the independence movement stays on the side of peace and disarmament – not the side of the military complex of failed Westminster foreign policy.”
Speaking when the report was published last week, Wishart said: “Because of its geography Scotland is home to a number of the UK’s strategic military assets and in our report we call on the UK Government to look at how the defence presence in Scotland could be scaled up if required to meet future threats. We are also calling for a review of the UK’s cold weather capabilities.”
nuclear-news 