nuclear-news

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

TODAY. UK govt has come clean about it! Nuclear power- no use, really – just essential for the nuclear weapons industry.

” Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050, – in this supposedly “civil” strategy – are multiple statements about addressing “civil and military nuclear ambitions” together to “identify opportunities to align the two across government”.

Some pesky British scientists have gone badly off script – the naughty troublemakers.  Andy Stirling and Philip Johnstone should be talking about the wonderful ability of the nuclear industry to fix climate problems and energy needs.

But dammit, these guys don’t seem to understand which side their bread is buttered on. They have blatantly explained what the UK government has quietly acknowledged – THE REAL REASON FOR THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.

The industry is not economic, not clean, not healthy, not safe, not effective against global heating, - BUT – it provides a good, respectable cover for continuing to use tax-payer to prop up the killing industry - nuclear weapons.

We probably all knew this, underneath. But it is obscured by some comfortable fantasy that we are safer “protected” by mass-killing weapons, than by friendship, understanding, negotiating, with other nations. By the fantasy that “strong” (though stupid) governments care about our survival. The reality is that those in power in government just want to hang on to their prestigious jobs and hope that the bad stuff doesn’t happen until after they retire. In the meantime they’ve got the support of the killing industries and macho military.

Stirling, Johnstone, and also Jonathon Porritt have publicised what the government rather quietly admitted:

” Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050, – in this supposedly “civil” strategy – are multiple statements about addressing “civil and military nuclear ambitions” together to “identify opportunities to align the two across government”.

Jonathon Porritt is probably already persona non grata with the authorities. As for Stirling and Johnstone – telling the truth is probably not a good career move.

January 20, 2024 Posted by | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Shining a light on the UK’s nuclear deterrent

changes in the government’s policy on nuclear power in recent years would effectively allow Britain’s military nuclear industry to be supported by payments from electricity consumers.

“The issue now is that UK citizens are unwittingly subsidising military nuclear activity through energy bills to the tune of many tens of billions of pounds,”

 https://www.sussex.ac.uk/research/explore-our-research/business-and-economics/shining-light-on-nuclear-deterrent 18 Jan 24

Professor Andy Stirling and Dr Phil Johnstone have highlighted a lack of transparency between governments’ nuclear power programmes and their military nuclear capabilities.

As nuclear power declines worldwide, it is striking how many countries that continue to expend costly support are either existing or aspiring nuclear weapons states.

So say Andy Stirling, Professor of Science and Technology Policy, and Research Fellow Dr Phil Johnstone, at the University of Sussex. Their research into the dependency of military nuclear capabilities on the support of civil nuclear programmes has been cited widely – not least in the UK.

From early working-paper findings to presenting evidence to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in the House of Commons, their research has raised important questions about accountability, transparency and the future role of the nuclear industry in a changing world.

It has also received major media attention, with stories in the Guardian, the BBC, Independent and New York Times, whilst their findings also culminated in questions being asked (and significant answers being obtained) in a UK Parliamentary Select Committee, many Parliamentary Questions posed in Westminster and a motion being passed through the Scottish Parliament.

But it hasn’t come without its frustrations. Since the academics first presented their findings to the House of Commons in 2017 – and then in numerous subsequent national and international press stories – the UK Government has not responded directly to the serious criticisms that arose concerning a lack of transparency and accountability. Invitations have been received to discuss these issues with official bodies, and the analysis has not been refuted, but it remains open what the Government itself will do.

Early findings

It’s been quite a journey from their initial research. In 2015, the academics published a working paper on German and UK nuclear power. It was here that the pair conducted an in-depth analysis to try to understand the different nuclear trajectories of the UK and Germany.

The findings of this research first pointed towards concealed UK motives for persisting with nuclear at a time when commentators and experts, virtually across the board, were suggesting the opposite: that it was in irreversible decline.

What was new about the Sussex analysis was that it looked beyond nuclear weapons to the hidden dependencies of the submarine industry on civil nuclear programmes.

“When we started out, the idea of civil programmes supporting military nuclear programmes, was met with significant scepticism.” says Stirling.

“Since then, through evidence submissions and continued output, there has been a gradual acceptance by some that the need to sustain key capabilities and skills in order to construct and maintain nuclear submarines is a significant factor driving the UK’s intense enthusiasm for new nuclear.”

A block in public openness

Things were about to speed up. In 2016, a detailed SPRU working paper asked why UK policy had been so intensely committed to nuclear power, with the findings clearly pointing to military links as a means for continuation.

As a result, questions were now being asked of the UK Government, with transparency – or the lack thereof – at the top of the agenda.

“When we started out, the idea of civil programmes supporting military nuclear programmes, was met with significant scepticism.” says Stirling.

“Since then, through evidence submissions and continued output, there has been a gradual acceptance by some that the need to sustain key capabilities and skills in order to construct and maintain nuclear submarines is a significant factor driving the UK’s intense enthusiasm for new nuclear.”

A block in public openness

Things were about to speed up. In 2016, a detailed SPRU working paper asked why UK policy had been so intensely committed to nuclear power, with the findings clearly pointing to military links as a means for continuation.

As a result, questions were now being asked of the UK Government, with transparency – or the lack thereof – at the top of the agenda.

In 2017, the findings were first presented before the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons. The evidence found that a white paper into the UK’s energy policy was now “extraordinarily overdue”.

“It was very clear that the usual public policy processes were falling short,” says Stirling. “In this sense, it is not just our own analysis, but a matter of public record, that due consultation and analysis have not so much been “disregarded” as not performed at all.

“So, at the core of this issue is the fact that the intensity of official commitments to nuclear power by successive UK governments is largely due to factors that remain effectively undeclared.”

Hinkley Point C

Undoubtedly one of the most significant developments in recent times in relation to the UK’s nuclear strategy has been the go-ahead and development of Hinkley Point C, a large nuclear power station under construction in Somerset.

Since its inception, the project, which is being built by the French electricity company EDF, has been criticised on a number of grounds – not least its huge and escalating cost.

But it is the justification to build any new nuclear power station, as highlighted by this research, that raises legitimate questions about the role the UK government has played in this process: of willfully disregarding open, thorough consultation and analysis in order to carry on regardless with nuclear energy, without providing a legitimate reason why.

In evidence submitted to the PAC, the research concluded that the costs of the Trident programme could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy, from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”.

In their evidence, the academics wrote that the £19.6bn Hinkley Point project would “maintain a large-scale national base of nuclear-specific skills” without which there is concern “that the costs of UK nuclear submarine capabilities could be insupportable”.

A hidden subsidy

This evidence suggested that changes in the government’s policy on nuclear power in recent years would effectively allow Britain’s military nuclear industry to be supported by payments from electricity consumers.

“The issue now is that UK citizens are unwittingly subsidising military nuclear activity through energy bills to the tune of many tens of billions of pounds,” points out Johnstone.

“However, growing ever more significant is the failure of the existing policy apparatus to engage with the criticisms in this regard. This highlights that one of the main issues here concerns the quality of UK policy processes and the health of UK democracy itself.”

As time goes on in this way, the underlying impact of this work expands beyond the immediate story. In part, say the researchers, it lies in the failure of the UK government to be accountable for the decisions it has made in relation to the future of the UK’s energy policy. It has become a transparency issue, one in which the effects aren’t just felt on a state level but amongst its citizens – for many years to come.

What now?

In a world where misinformation is rife, it wasn’t long until claims were made that the research amounted to a ‘conspiracy theory’– particularly with findings that have had such far-reaching consequences. But this is something that Stirling and Johnstone have taken in their stride.

“The few private and public accusations that our analysis is a conspiracy theory have now all largely abated,” says Stirling.

“Several academics, policy analysts and journalists, who used these terms right at the outset, have now all gone out of their way explicitly to tell us that they believe us to be correct.

“In one case, a nuclear advocacy organization, taking the trouble to criticise us this way in an early blog post, has since shifted its position to openly advocate precisely the links they previously dismissed as a conspiracy theory.”

All of this points to research that is still evoking a reaction, still engaging stakeholders across the community, and is reaching into the heart of the democratic process. It also indicates that the effects of the research haven’t yet reached their climax.

A growing tension

“The reaction so far in the UK and international press, the wider energy policy and academic communities suggests that our work is making a firm mark in a field where the stakes are extremely high,” says Johnstone.

“Although the UK Government has itself thus far tried to side-line the issue, it has become strongly acknowledged more widely – even to the point of becoming orthodoxy in many quarters. The lack of official engagement is growing ever more telling.”

Yet uptake of the analysis by many prominent bodies and individuals in this field leaves no doubt that public discussions around nuclear power in the UK and more widely have been strongly influenced by this research.

As Stirling points out: “A backdrop of continued silence on the part of government, as trends continue to unfold and evidence and commentary continues to accumulate, suggests eventual acknowledgement is growing more likely. This in turn suggests that the largest impacts have yet to emerge.”

January 20, 2024 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s nuclear obsessions kill off its net zero strategy

The new Roadmap reads like an outing to a massive nuclear sweet shop. On top of Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, we’ll have one more big one. And then we’ll have lots of Small Modular Reactors, all over the country. And we’ll have a new fuel processing plant. And a new Geological Disposal Facility – at some much more distance point. And so on and on. 24 fantastical Gigawatts to be designed and delivered by 2050.

Jonathon Porritt, 18 Jan 24

After 14 years of Tory mismanagement, the UK finds itself bereft of an energy strategy.

This was finally confirmed in the release last week of the Government’s new Nuclear Roadmap. At one level, it’s just the same old, same old, the latest in a very long line of PR-driven, more or less fantastical wishlists for new nuclear in the UK. But at another, it’s a total revelation.

For years, a small group of dedicated academics and campaigners have suggested that the UK Government’s Nuclear Energy Strategy is being driven more by the UK’s continuing commitment to an “independent” nuclear weapons capability than by any authoritative energy analysis. For an equal number of years, this was aggressively rebutted by one Energy Minister after another, both Tory and Labour.

The new Nuclear Roadmap dramatically changes all that. It sets to one side any pretence that the links between our civil nuclear programme and our military defence needs were anything other than small-scale – and of no material strategic significance. With quite startling transparency and clarity, the Roadmap not only reveals the full extent of those links, but positively celebrates that co-dependency as a massive plus in our ambition to achieve a Net Zero economy by 2050.

“Startling” is actually an understatement. Such a comprehensive volte-face is rare in policy-making circles. Every effort is usually made by Ministers to obscure the scale (let along the significance) of any such screeching handbrake turns. That is so not the case with the new Roadmap.

Courtesy of the latest forensic work done by Professors Andy Stirling and Phil Johnstone at Sussex University (who have been absolutely at the forefront of seeking to bring these links into the public domain over many years – often with mighty little support from mainstream environmental organisations, let alone “independent” commentators), chapter and verse of this volte-face can be laid bare. Just three o examples from the Roadmap:

  • “Not only does this Roadmap set a clear path for the growth of nuclear fission…it acknowledges the crucial importance of the nuclear industry to our national security, both in terms of energy supply and the defence nuclear enterprise.”
  • “Government will proactively look for opportunities to align delivery of the civil and nuclear defence enterprises, whilst maintaining the highest standards of non-proliferation.”
  • “To address the commonalities across the civil and defence supply chains, and the potential risk to our respective nuclear programmes due to competing demand for the supply chain, the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is working closely with the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Nuclear Sector.”

And there’s a whole lot more than that! As Andy Stirling has said: “Without any reflection on what this says about previous efforts to suppress discussion of this issue, the Government is now openly emphasising its significance.”

Indeed!

As usual, the UK’s ill-informed and unbelievably gullible mainstream media would appear to have missed the significance of this gobsmacking inflection point. So one can hardly expect them to have grasped its even more significant implications for UK energy strategy as a whole. In every single particular.

Let me briefly unpack some of those particulars:

  1. Nuclear

The new Roadmap reads like an outing to a massive nuclear sweet shop. On top of Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, we’ll have one more big one. And then we’ll have lots of Small Modular Reactors, all over the country. And we’ll have a new fuel processing plant. And a new Geological Disposal Facility – at some much more distance point. And so on and on. 24 fantastical Gigawatts to be designed and delivered by 2050.

The reality couldn’t be more different:

  • We will indeed end up with Hinkley Point C – at a staggering of cost of somewhere between £26 billion and £30 billion, with consumers paying twice as much for its electricity as they will for offshore wind. And it will almost certainly not come online until the end of the decade, 15 years on from the time it was meant to be up and running.
  • We may possibly get Sizewell C, though the Government cannot currently guarantee the required level of investment. So a Final Investment Decision is unlikely before the next Election. At which point, Starmer may come to his senses and kill off this absurd white elephant.
  • We will never get a third big reactor. The economics are literally impossible to justify.
  • We are unlikely to get more than a couple of hugely expensive Small Modular Reactors, at some indeterminate point in the future, even with a new “flexible approach” to planning and financial inducements. Even that may prove to be an illusion. As Professor Steve Thomas has written: “Advocates of Small Nuclear Reactors claim they are cheaper and easier to build, safer, generate less waste, and will create many jobs compared to existing large reactor designs. These claims are unproven, misleading, or just plain wrong. Worldwide, no commercial design of SMR has even received a firm order yet.”
  • And we may or may not get life extensions for the last five power stations in the “legacy fleet” – subject to regulatory approval, which may not be all that easy given extensive cracking in their reactor cores.

In short, the Roadmap is just a massive diversion from reality. Entailing incalculable opportunity costs. And putting at risk our entire Net Zero by 2050 strategy.

Ministers know all that. But they don’t really care. Our nuclear weapons programme (including upgrading Trident) will be protected as a consequence of this, via an unceasing flow of public money into the civil nuclear cul-de-sac, at a time when our defence budget is already massively overstretched. So who cares about the missing 24GW?

  1. Renewables

We’ll continue to see new investment into renewables here in the UK, despite (not because of) government policy, which has seriously messed up our offshore wind industry, maintained a de facto ban on onshore wind, couldn’t care less about solar, witters on vapidly about tidal without doing anything etc etc.

Meanwhile, on a global basis, renewables continue to boom. Here are a few facts – in contrast to over-excited sightings of nuclear unicorns:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Why don’t people see this?

Why don’t our mainstream media offer any serious critique of what’s going on here?

Why don’t our opposition parties rip to shreds this tissue of preposterous illusions?

The reasons for this almost complete silence can be traced back to successive governments’ grim intent to hang onto our so-called “independent nuclear deterrent”. At literally any costs…………………………………………………………………….more https://www.jonathonporritt.com/uks-nuclear-obsessions-kill-off-its-net-zero-strategy/

January 20, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Zelensky Courts JPMorgan, Bank of America & Bridgewater CEOs At Davos, Urges More Money From West

Zero Hedge, BY TYLER DURDEN, WEDNESDAY, JAN 17, 2024

As expected, anything related to Ukraine presented at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos has been focused on more weaponry and seeking more vows of integration among Western allies. 

“Ukrainians need predictable financing throughout 2024 and beyond,” European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen told World Economic Forum participants. “They need a sufficient and sustained supply of weapons to defend Ukraine and regain its rightful territory.”

As for President Zelensky, in addressing world leaders at the forum he emphasized that the West needs to help Ukraine achieve air superiority if his forces are to have a chance to emerge victorious against Russia……………………………………

At the summit, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken promised that Washington will keep up its support for Ukraine, however while keeping things vague – following Biden’s proposed foreign defense budget request being reject by GOP members in Congress; and NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg suggested Ukraine is moving closer to entry into the alliance.

Stoltenberg acknowledged a “serious battlefield situation” but also said there is “cause for optimism” after nearly two years of fighting, and NATO’s constant support.

Below is a portion of the NATO press readout based on his panel speech: 

…………  Ukrainians are now firmly oriented to the West, aspiring for membership in NATO and the European Union. The Secretary General also stressed that “support for Ukraine is not charity; it’s an investment in our own security”.………

But realistically, the prospect of Ukraine gaining full NATO membership would be a process of years, and would likely trigger WW3 with Russia–so to some degree this is all empty posturing.

But here’s what’s happening at Davos which is arguably more important to Kiev at the moment:

Ukraine is seeking new ways to finance its rebuilding plans as vital aid from the West slows down. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reportedly has plans to meet JP Morgan’s CEO at the World Economic Forum.

Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy is reportedly planning to meet JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon at the World Economic Forum in Davos to seek new ways of financing its rebuilding plans. 

JP Morgan, the biggest US bank with almost half a trillion dollars of market capitalization, has already been advising Ukraine on financing reconstruction.

It’s as yet unclear if any firm promises were made or agreements struck at the Davos meeting which also included Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan, as well as Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio. 

According to further details of who was in attendance via Fox Business: “Other meeting attendees included David Rubinstein of the private equity firm Carlyle Group; billionaire entrepreneur Michael Dell, the founder of Dell Technologies; Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund; Steve Schwarzman, the CEO of Blackstone, the world’s largest private equity fund; and Philipp Hildebrand, representing BlackRock, the world’s largest money manager.”

Additionally, “Dimon was accompanied by Mary Erdoes, who runs JPMorgan’s asset-management unit. The White House was represented by Penny Pritzker, of the super-wealthy Pritzker family and a major Democratic Party donor.” Pritzker has been appointed Biden administration’s special representative for Ukraine’s economic recovery.  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/zelensky-courts-jpmorgan-bank-america-bridgewater-ceos-davos-urges-more-west

January 20, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Limping along: EDF Energy looking to extend operational life of aging reactors AGAIN.

Nuclear Free Local Authorities, 18 Jan 24

The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities are concerned that EDF Energy, the arm of French state-owned Électricité de France which operates the UK nuclear fleet, has just announced its intention to further extend operations at its four remaining aging Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor plants.

Hartlepool, Heysham-1, Heysham-2, and Torness first began generating in either 1983 or 1988, with an estimated operational life of 30 years. In 2023, the operating lives of Hartlepool and Heysham-1 were extended by two years from 2024 to March 2026, however the closure of Heysham-2 and Torness had previously been brought forward from 2030 to March 2028 because of ‘impacts on the graphite cores’.

The aging AGR plants will have been operating for at least 40 years by 2028, and the NFLAs’ core concerns revolve around the safety risk posed by the degradation of the graphite neutron moderators in each reactor.

NFLA Scotland Policy Advisor Pete Roche finds the rethink of the situation at Torness and Heysham 2 totally inexplicable: “In May 2020 we learnt that the cores of the four reactors at Torness and Heysham 2 were predicted to start cracking in 2022, six years earlier than previously thought. These last two AGRs have a significant design difference, compared to other AGRs which could make the cracking problem worse. Several commentators, at the time, questioned whether the two stations would make it even as far as 2028.

In 2020 the Office for Nuclear Regulation said the design difference at Torness and Heysham 2 could lead to graphite debris challenging the reactors’ ability to move or adequately cool fuel. And if the Regulators modelling predictions on the graphite core cracking were realised, then the reactors would not be safe to operate for another ten years. Heysham-1 and Hartlepool face similar operational challenges.

Yet in the ‘UK Nuclear Free Stakeholder Update’ published earlier this month, EDF company bosses state: ‘The prospect of further AGR lifetime extensions ([of] four power stations) will be reviewed again by the end [of] 2024 and the ambition is to generate beyond these dates, subject to plant inspections and regulatory approvals.’[1]

To support this ‘ambition’, EDF Energy also pledges to: ‘invest a further £1.3 billion over the next three years (2024-26) to help sustain current levels of generation’ within the company’s Nuclear Operations Division.

The function of the graphite core and the impact of aging is detailed by the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) on its website:

https://www.onr.org.uk/civil-nuclear-reactors/graphite-core-ageing.htm

‘As well as moderation, the fundamental safety requirements of an AGR core include allowing free movement of control rods, free movement of fuel and directing the flow of coolant gas to ensure adequate cooling of the fuel and core structure.  Essentially, significant weight-loss and cracking may compromise these safety requirements.
‘During operation, the graphite slowly loses weight due to oxidation caused by the reactor’s carbon dioxide coolant gas.  Loss of weight affects both the mechanical properties of the graphite brick, and reduces its effectiveness as a moderator.’

We raised our concerns that graphite core cracking could over time seriously compromise safety as far back as 2014 and most recently in correspondence, and in meetings, with officials from the ONR.

Our concerns and activities on this issue were outlined in our briefing No 250 ‘Update on the AGR closure programme’, dated 17 October 2022:……………………………………………………

Three AGRs at Dungeness-B, Hinkley Point-B and Hunterston-B have already closed, and are in the process of defueling, but those that remain continue to experience defects during their end-of-life cycle in addition to any cracking of the graphite core moderator.

Dr Paul Dorfman, Chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, who is often called upon to comment on nuclear power and renewable energy issues by media outlets worldwide, is clear that closure of the AGRs is long overdue:

“All the UK nuclear reactors that EDF want to ‘life extend’ have histories of technical problems – by far the most significant is the cracking of the graphite bricks in the core moderator. The role of the graphite moderator is to slow down the fast neutrons to allow the chain reaction.


“Due to irradiation damage over time, the bricks crack and reactor core distorts. Channels run through the bricks, allowing control rods to shut-down the reactor in an emergency. Because the graphite core can’t be repaired or replaced, this means that core damage is a life-limiting condition.
This is why these reactor’s original operating design life was just 30 years.

“All things considered, much better to be safe than sorry. Shut them down.”

The status and operating history of the AGRs does indeed belie the claim of government ministers and industry supremos that nuclear is a reliable source of electricity generation; indeed, generation at the plants can best be described as ‘intermittent’, a term commonly used by detractors of renewable energy technologies……………………………………………..

There will doubtless be a point where it will simply be uneconomic for EDF Energy to continue generating electricity at these elderly plants, but Councillor Lawrence O’Neill, Chair of the NFLAs, wonders if EDF Energy’s motivation is in part driven by the need to generate extra income in the medium term given the significant delays in delivering Hinkley Point C:

“Frankly EDF Energy could do with the money from continuing operations at the four AGR plants. Hinkley Point C is being built at EDF’s risk and EDF’s cost. It is massively over budget and hugely behind schedule. It may well not be generating by 2028 or even by 2030, and broadsheet newspapers like The Telegraph and Guardian have recently speculated that the plant may even not be online before 2032. In the meantime, EDF Energy will be haemorrhaging cash”…………………………………… https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/limping-along-edf-energy-looking-to-extend-operational-life-of-aging-reactors-again/

January 20, 2024 Posted by | safety | Leave a comment

For Estonia the risks of going nuclear are high, and the plant not strictly necessary

ERR EE,   Jevgeni Ossinovski, chair of the Social Democratic Party (SDE) parliamentary group, 20 Jan 24

Our worst-case scenario would be suspending Estonia’s sustainability efforts in anticipation of a nuclear power plant, Jevgeni Ossinovski (SDE) writes.

“….. nuclear power plants could be the preferable option in countries with high population density, high energy demand and limited land for renewable energy development.

A very different question is whether Estonia needs a nuclear power plant. We lack the skills, regulations, civil protection and monitoring systems, or even a waste disposal site, for building and operating a nuclear power plant. For all of these reasons, developing a nuclear facility carries significant risks and societal costs that would fall on future generations.

The report of the [Estonian] nuclear working group suggests that it is possible to build a nuclear power plant in Estonia, which is not surprising. Also, the report suggests ways to minimize some of the risks involved, but on several critical topics, such as the final disposal of nuclear waste, it provides little insight and merely states that a waste disposal solution will be eventually developed, which apparently does not yet exist.

Unfortunately, the report also fails to address the question, which is critical to Social Democrats: Is it unavoidable that Estonia needs a nuclear power plant, considering the long-term risks and consequences?

The board of the Social Democrats adopted the position that the answer to this question was “no” as early as 2021. There are other alternative approaches that could speed up the realization of our energy goals, and these are affordable, environmentally sustainable and reliable energy sources.

At the Social Democrats’ insistence, a goal of generating 100 percent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2030 has become law. The administration is aiming to establish the necessary regulatory structure to double renewable energy generation in the coming years.

This will give us a surplus of energy for over half the year, which we should aim to store for periods when there is no wind and little sun, or export. So we’ll be supported by fast-growing storage capacity (the soon-to-be-built Paldiski hydropump and battery storage), better consumption management and links to neighboring nations where we can also get electricity in cases of shortages for most of the remaining hours………………………………………………………………………………………..

The development of renewables, storage facilities, consumption management, and international trade will give us what we need: economical, climate-friendly and secure electricity under normal grid conditions, while we also have sufficient reserve capacity for extreme cases……………………………….

Our worst-case scenario would be suspending Estonia’s sustainability efforts in anticipation of a nuclear power plant. If the plant is not built in 10 years due to public opposition, a political decision, the immaturity of [small modular reactor] technology, or a lack of investment (all of which are real risks), we will be facing a sinkhole and the National Audit Office once again will have to admit that decision-makers shortchanged the Estonian people.

Should new circumstances emerge that indicate Estonia is incapable of achieving its energy policy goals without a nuclear power plant, we will be ready to reassess our position. So far, the nuclear energy working group failed to address this issue in its report.  https://news.err.ee/1609227519/ossinovski-risks-of-going-nuclear-high-and-the-plant-not-strictly-necessary

January 20, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | 1 Comment

The threat of catastrophe is assessed in Nuclear Armageddon: How Close Are We? — review

Ft.com, 19 Jan 24,

BBC documentary surveys experts in international security, diplomacy and military science to shed light on current reality

………………………………….. Nuclear Armageddon: How Close Are We?, a BBC documentary tied to the Doomsday Clock update, asks why the hands have ominously ticked to within 90 seconds of a catastrophic “midnight”, the shortest time recorded since the clock’s inception in 1947. The title strikes an alarmist tone but the show itself is built on the reporting of journalist and filmmaker Jane Corbin and insightful interviews with experts in international security, diplomacy and military science. They include a Nobel Prize winner and a physicist who has been given rare access to North Korea’s nuclear facilities……………………………………………….

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.comT&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/64d5c035-b1de-480a-95d6-06ce7b07b9ae

The documentary is balanced and informative yet it can only scratch the surface in a single hour. A longer runtime would have left room for a more thorough analysis of how the conflict in the Middle East could shape Iran’s uncertain nuclear future, and what the re-election of a man accused of keeping classified domestic documents in the bathroom of his private residence might mean for the US and the world. As Bronson notes at one point, all it takes are careless “accidents and misperceptions” to plunge us into midnight darkness.  https://www.ft.com/content/64d5c035-b1de-480a-95d6-06ce7b07b9ae

January 20, 2024 Posted by | media, Resources -audiovicual, UK | Leave a comment

North Korea says it tested underwater nuclear attack drone in response to rivals’ naval drills

By Associated Press Jan 19, 24,  https://www.9news.com.au/national/north-korea-says-it-tested-underwater-nuclear-attack-drone-in-response-to-rivals-naval-drills/c2549630-f1b1-47f9-a510-0c1352a6ca97

North Korea vows to back Russia after meeting between leaders

North Korea said on Friday it had tested a purported underwater nuclear attack drone in response to a combined naval exercise between South Korea, the United States and Japan this week, as it continues to blame its rivals for raising tensions in the region.

The alleged drone test came days after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un declared he would scrap his country’s long-standing goal of a peaceful unification with South Korea and that his country would rewrite its constitution to define South Korea as its most hostile foreign adversary.

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have risen to their highest point in years, with Kim accelerating his weapons testing activity and threatening nuclear conflict.

The United States and its Asian allies have responded by strengthening their combined military exercises, which Kim calls rehearsals for invasion.

North Korea’s alleged nuclear attack drone, which the North first tested last year, is among a broad range of weapon systems demonstrated in recent years as Kim expands his arsenal of nuclear-capable weapons.

South Korea’s military has insisted the North has exaggerated the capabilities of the drone, which is supposedly designed to carry out strikes on enemy vessels and ports.

The North’s military said it conducted the test in the country’s eastern waters in response to the US, South Korean and Japanese joint naval drill, which ended on Wednesday in waters south of Jeju island.

“Our army’s underwater nuke-based countering posture is being further rounded off and its various maritime and underwater responsive actions will continue to deter the hostile military maneuvers of the navies of the US and its allies,” the North’s Defence Ministry said in a statement.

“We strongly denounce the US and its followers for their reckless acts of seriously threatening the security of the DPRK from the outset of the year and sternly warn them of the catastrophic consequences to be entailed by them,” it said, using the initials of North Korea’s formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The North in recent months has also tested various missile systems designed to target the United States and its Asian allies, and announced an escalatory nuclear doctrine that authorises the military to conduct preemptive nuclear strikes if the leadership in Pyongyang is under threat.

The North conducted its first ballistic missile test of 2024 on Sunday, which state media described as a new solid-fuel, intermediate-range missile tipped with a hypersonic warhead, likely intended to target US military bases in Guam and Japan.

At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on Thursday, South Korea called on the council “to break the silence” over North Korea’s escalating missile tests and threats. Two of the council’s permanent members, Russia and China, have blocked US-led efforts to increase sanctions on Pyongyang over its recent testing activity, underscoring a divide deepened over Russia’s war on Ukraine. South Korea is serving a two-year term on the council

January 20, 2024 Posted by | North Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

It’s All About Me: Netanyahu Rejects Palestinian Statehood

January 20, 2024Written by: Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.com/its-all-about-me-netanyahu-rejects-palestinian-statehood/

Israel has been given enormous license to control the security narrative in the Middle East for decades. This is not to say it is always in control of it – the attacks of October 7 by Hamas show that such control is rickety and bound, at stages, to come undone. What matters for Israeli security is that certain neighbours always understand that they are never to do certain things, lest they risk existential oblivion.

For instance, no Middle Eastern state will be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons on the Jewish State’s watch. Nuclear reactors and facilities will be struck, infected, or pulverised altogether (Osirak at Tuwaitha, Iraq; the Natanz site in Iran), with, or without knowledge, approval or participation of the United States.

This is a signature mark of Israeli foreign and defence policy: the nuclear option remains the greatest, single affirmation of sovereignty in international relations. To possess it, precisely because of its destructive and shielding potential, is to proclaim to the community of nation states that you have lethal insurance against invasion and regime change. Best, then, to make sure others do not possess it.

Israel, on the other hand, will be permitted to develop its own cataclysmic inventory of weapons, platforms, and doomsday options, all the while claiming strategic ambiguity about the whole matter. In that strangulating way, Israeli policy resembles the thornily disingenuous former US President Bill Clinton’s approach to taking drugs and oral sex: he did not inhale, and oral pleasuring by one by another is simply not sex.

The latest remarks from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on January 18 suggest that the license also extends to ensuring that Palestinians will never be permitted a sovereign homeland, that they will be, in a perverse biblical echo, kept in a form of bondage, downtrodden, oppressed and, given what happened on October 7 last year, suppressed. This is to ensure that, whatever the grievance, that they never err, never threaten, and never cause grief to the Israeli State. To that end, it is axiomatic that their political authorities are kept incipient, inchoate, corrupt and permanently on life support, the tolerated beggars and charity seekers of the Middle East.

At the press conference in question, held at the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu claimed that, “Whoever is talking about the ‘day after Netanyahu’ is essentially talking about the establishment of the Palestinian state with the Palestinian Authority.” (How very like the Israeli PM to make it all about him.) The Israel-Palestinian conflict, he wanted to clarify, was “not about the absence of a state, a Palestinian state, but rather about the existence of a state, a Jewish state.”

With monumental gall, he complained that “All territory we evacuate, we get terror, terrible terror against us.” His examples, enumerated much like sins at a confessional, were instances where Israel, as an occupying force, had left or reduced their presence: Gaza, southern Lebanon, parts of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). It followed that “any future arrangement, or in the absence of any future arrangement,” Israel would continue to maintain “security control” of all lands west of the Jordan River. “That is a vital condition.”

As such lands comprise Israeli territory, Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinian sovereignty can be assuredly ignored as a tenable outcome in Netanyahu’s policed paradise. He even went so far as to acknowledge that this “contradicts the idea of sovereignty” as far as the Palestinians are concerned. “What can you do? I tell this truth to our American friends.”

As to sceptical mutterings in the Israeli press about the country’s prospects of defeating Hamas decisively, Netanyahu was all foamy with indignation. “We will continue to fight at full strength until we achieve our goals: the return of all our hostages – and I say again, only military pressure will lead to their release; the elimination of Hamas; the certainty that Gaza will never again represent a threat to Israel. There won’t be any party that educates for terror, funds terror, sends terrorists against us.”

This hairbrained policy of ethno-religious lunacy masquerading as sane military strategy ensures that permanent war nourished by the poison of blood-rich hatred and revenge will continue unabated. In keeping such a powder keg stocked, there is always the risk that other powers and antagonists willing to have a say through bombs, rockets and drones will light it. Should this or that state be permitted to exist or come into being? The answer is bound to be convulsively violent.

It is of minor interest that officials in the United States found Netanyahu’s comments a touch off-putting. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had, it is reported, dangled a proposal before the Israeli PM that would see Saudi Arabia normalise relations with Israel in exchange for an agreement to facilitate the pathway to Palestinian statehood. Netanyahu did not bite, insisting that he would not be a party to any agreement that would see the creation of a Palestinian state.

Blinken, if one is to rely on the veracity of the account, suggested that the removal of Hamas could never be achieved in purely military terms; a failure on the part of Israel’s leadership to recognise that fact would lead to a continuation of violence and history repeating itself.

In Washington, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller stated in the daily press briefing that “Israel faces some very difficult choices in the months ahead.” The conflict in Gaza would eventually end; reconstruction would follow; agreement from various countries in the region to aid in that effort had been secured – all on the proviso that a “tangible path to the establishment of a Palestinian state” could be agreed upon.

For decades, administrations in Washington have fantasised about castles in the skies, the outlandish notion that Palestinians and Israelis might exist in cosy accord upon lands stolen and manured by brutal death. Washington, playing the Hegemonic Father, could then perch above the fray, gaze paternally upon the scrapping disputants, and suggest what was best for both. But the two-state solution was always encumbered and heavily conditioned to take place on Israeli terms, leaving all mediation and interventions by outsiders flitting gestures lacking substance.

Now, no one can claim otherwise that Palestinian statehood is anything other than spectral, fantastic, and doomed – at least under the current warring regime. Netanyahu’s own political survival, profanely linked to Israel’s own existence, depends on not just stifling pregnancies in Gaza but preventing the birth of a nationally recognised Palestinian state.

January 20, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics | 1 Comment

Work officially ‘started’ at Sizewell C Nuclear on Monday – but it was really only political theatre.

Ipswich Star,  By Paul Geater 18 Jan 24

This week we had big fanfares and a major ceremony to “mark the start” of construction at Sizewell C.

But what did it all mean? 

In one sense construction has already started. Land has been dug up, mature trees have been cut down, and one of the new entrances to the site is being cleared.

However, the Final Investment Decision (FID), the point at which the various parties are committed to building the station is still, apparently, several months away – so Monday’s ceremony really does look like nothing but a piece of political theatre.

What is clear, though, is that there is clear political will for this project to go ahead. The Government and the official opposition are both committed to it whatever the cost they may be exposed to.

I can understand that. I still don’t think it makes a great deal of economic sense – but given the uncertainties across the globe and the need to move to carbon zero energy I can see why they want to proceed with nuclear whatever the cost.

Personally I don’t have any concerns about the potential safety of the plant – while there are potential dangers with nuclear generation the experience over the last 60 years in this country suggests it can be operated safely.

And given that there are already two nuclear plants at Sizewell that need to be protected from the sea, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to put the new plant next to them so the protection can be shared.

 I still have serious concerns with EDF and the government – who must be seen as equal partners in the project – over the way it is going to be built and the devastating impact it will have on local communities.

By adopting a “bull in a china shop” attitude towards its construction, EDF and the government are planning to cause substantial environmental damage to some of the most precious parts of the Heritage Coast that are closely linked in with Minsmere and Dunwich Heath……………………………………

Creating a new nature reserve two miles inland is great – but it can’t replace a massive area that’s directly linked to the coast.

But I fear that battle is lost now. With both the current government and the likely future government keen on the project, the best we can hope for is that some new habitats will make up for the lost treasures………………….

There’s also been a failure to really engage with local people. There have now been local community forums set up but they are being treated with suspicion by many.  https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/24054795.opinion-sizewell-c-still-doesnt-engage-residents/

January 20, 2024 Posted by | environment, spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

No Palestinian state – Netanyahu

 https://www.rt.com/news/590919-no-palestinian-state-netanyahu/ 19 Jan 24

The US and Israel have clashed over the future of post-war Gaza

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that Israel “will not settle for anything short of an absolute victory,” rejecting calls from Washington to either wind down the hostilities in Gaza or support the creation of a Palestinian state. 

The US pushed for the realization of the two-state solution earlier this week in Davos, with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken arguing that Israel’s path to “genuine security” lay with the formation of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli PM dismissed the idea on Thursday, asserting that “Israel must maintain security control over all the territory west of the Jordan River,” to ensure no “terror is leveled against” the Israeli people.

“We will not settle for anything short of an absolute victory… That collides with the idea of [Palestinian] sovereignty. What can we do?” Netanyahu said at a press briefing in Tel Aviv. “I have explained this truth to our American friends, and I put the brakes on the attempt to coerce us to a reality that would endanger the state of Israel.”

However, Washington believes there is no way to solve Israel and Gaza’s long- and short-term problems “without the establishment of a Palestinian state,” US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller reiterated on Thursday.

During Blinken’s Middle East tour last week, the US delegation allegedly secured agreements with several Arab leaders to participate in rebuilding Gaza, provided that Israel moves forward with a two-state solution for Palestine.

“For the first time in its history, you see the countries in the region who are ready to step up and further integrate with Israel and provide real security assurances to Israel and the United States is ready to play its part too, but they all have to have a willing partner on the other side,” Miller continued, calling this a “historic opportunity” for Israel.

The IDF military operation in Gaza has drawn condemnation from the surrounding Arab states, as well as the wider international community, as the death toll among Palestinians nears 25,000 people, according to local officials.

The war has caused widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza and displaced over 80% of the enclave’s 2.3 million residents since the fighting erupted on October 7. Hamas militants attacked Israel on that day, killing more than 1,100 people and taking over 200 hostages. According to Israeli sources, more than 130 people remain in captivity.

January 20, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear Threats Are Looming, And Nobody Knows How Many Nukes Are Out There

Researchers are using open-source intelligence such as satellite imagery and military parades to lift the fog surrounding the world’s nuclear stockpiles.

VICE, By Matthew Gault, 19 December 2023,

As best anyone can tell, there are 12,512 nuclear weapons in the world. But the world of nuclear deterrence is one of secrets and threats. 

Deterrence, the idea that no one will attack you if you have a nuclear weapon, relies on the threat being ambiguous. But scientists and other experts dedicated to reducing that ambiguity work to count the warheads using open-source sources of information such as satellite imagery so the rest of the world can get a better, if imperfect, idea of how many world-ending weapons are out there.

The number of known nukes has grown in recent years, but it’s still down from its alarming 1985 peak of more than 60,000. Keeping track of all the nuclear weapons is hard, and imprecise, work. The nine countries that have them aren’t forthcoming with the exact number of weapons in their stockpile. The U.S. and Russia once shared information about their arsenals with each other as part of anti-proliferation treaties, but negligence on the part of both governments has seen those treaties weaken in the past few years.

So how do we get the number 12,512? The answer is complicated, but it involves high resolution satellite imagery, government reports, and military parades.

Mat Korda, a Senior Research Fellow at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), is part of a team of researchers that tracks the world’s nuclear weapons. Every year, they publish their informed estimates as the Nuclear Notebook at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

For Korda, it’s not just about the numbers, which investigators have accepted will not be completely accurate. “The story is not whether or not the number has gone up or down,” he told Motherboard. “The story is about the broader trends we’re seeing in each country’s arsenal. What we’re seeing is that transparency is going down, military stockpiles are going up. The weapons themselves are getting more sophisticated. Some of these legacy weapons from the Cold War era are getting decommissioned and we’re getting new types of weapons. All of this comes together to make nuclear use more likely than at any time since the end of the Cold War.”

The nuclear powers don’t make the task of estimating their stockpiles easy. Some countries share information that hints at their nuclear capacity, but don’t explicitly state how many weapons they have. The U.K. has discussed setting limits to the amount of nukes it has, but hasn’t disclosed how many it has. “On the other end of the spectrum, you have countries that have never acknowledged that they have nuclear weapons. Like Israel,” Korda said. “Within that broad spectrum, there is not much official data about nuclear weapons stockpiles that the public has access to. And so we are forced to rely on little snippets of information that we can divine from things like treaty data, or government statements or leaks or freedom of information requests or military parade videos.”

Korda said there are three main sources the researchers use to figure out how many nukes everyone has: government sources, media sources, and open-source intelligence. Government sources are often the most helpful and clear, as long as you’re looking in the right place. “Treaties, official statements, or freedom of information requests that we can make to a particular agency,” he said. “These are things like budgetary documents where there’s a lot of stakeholders involved. And so we can rely on that kind of data.”

But government and media sources have biases that Korda and his team have to keep in mind when they’re working. “When the United States makes estimates about how many warheads China is going to build in the future, these are estimates based on assumptions. And those assumptions are based on biases or might be meant to send some kind of political message,” he said……………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bj7x/nuclear-threats-are-looming-and-nobody-knows-how-many-nukes-are-out-there

January 20, 2024 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

How Israel Bombed Al Jazeera Journalists & Blocked Rescue of Cameraman Samer Abudaqa Until He Died

Democracy Now. JANUARY 17, 2024

We hear from Democracy Now! correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous, whose recent article for The Intercept documents how Israel bombed two Al Jazeera journalists in mid-December while they were accompanying rescue workers, seriously injuring both. But while the network’s Gaza bureau chief Wael al-Dahdouh managed to get to an ambulance nearby, his cameraman Samer Abudaqa bled to death from his wounds as Israeli forces prevented medical workers from reaching him for about five hours, despite the desperate entreaties of many foreign journalists to save the life of their colleague. “The world should be outraged about this killing, about all the killings that are happening to Palestinian journalists in Gaza,” says Abdel Kouddous.1

Transcript……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/17/al_jazeera_journalists_attacked?fbclid=IwAR0VM-_M1vgnP6RCVfFxVIzRS3trLHqblVMRD65RPdKn25quH8Xb_ctGPIw

January 20, 2024 Posted by | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment