The U.S. Quest for Nuclear Primacy

The U.S. Quest for Nuclear Primacy: The Counterforce Doctrine and the Ideology of Moral Asymmetry

Monthly Review, by John Bellamy Foster, February 2024

The demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991 resulted in Washington declaring at that very moment that a new unipolar world order was being ushered in, with the United States now the sole superpower.

The United States, supported by its NATO allies, immediately initiated a grand strategy of regime change or “naked imperialism” in the Balkans, the Middle East, northern Africa, and along the entire perimeter of the former Soviet Union. This was accompanied by the rapid expansion of NATO itself eastward into the former Warsaw Pact countries and regions previously part of the USSR.

The pivotal goal in this expansion, as explained by former U.S. National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard, was to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, which would create the geopolitical and geostrategic conditions for the final overpowering and forced breakup of the Russian Federation.³

Underlying this imperial design for the formation of a unipolar world order was Washington’s effort to reestablish its absolute nuclear dominance of the early Cold War years, when it had a nuclear monopoly (1945–49), followed by a period of quantitative nuclear superiority (1949–53)—prior to the Soviet Union achieving effective nuclear parity with the United States.⁴…………………………….. Ironically, the demise of the Soviet Union led in the United States (and NATO) to the triumph of the maximum deterrence posture, despite various strategic arms agreements, and to the seeming final defeat of those who had long argued for a minimal deterrence posture.⁶

Counterforce has as its objective nuclear primacy or first-strike capability, that is, the use of nuclear weapons for “decapitating” the enemy’s nuclear weapons before they can be launched (sometimes referred to as a “true first strike”).⁷ Moreover, counterforce also lends itself to the idea of limited nuclear war and can therefore be seen as operating within a continuum that also includes nonstrategic or tactical nuclear weapons and conventional weapons, thus representing the full integration of nuclear weapons into military strategy at every level…………………………………………………………

The coincidence of declining U.S. hegemony in the world economy with the U.S. attempt to secure unipolar dominance through military means, in line with its current policy of maximal deterrence by means of counterforce and nuclear primacy, has all come to a head in the current proxy war in Ukraine between the United States/NATO and Russia, and in the increasing tensions over Taiwan between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.

The ongoing conflicts over Ukraine and Taiwan constitute the main hot spots in the New Cold War emanating from Washington, involving actual and potential proxy war on the very borders of superpowers. This has enormously increased the likelihood of global thermonuclear war. This in turn poses the threat of global omnicide with the onset of nuclear winter, as smoke and soot from all-encompassing fires in one hundred or more cities would block out solar radiation, drastically lowering global temperatures and resulting, within a couple of years, in the effective annihilation of the global population.¹²

The Critique of Maximum Deterrence………………………………………………………………………………………………..

In Fear, War and the Bomb, Blackett dealt with the U.S. decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here it was argued for the first time that “the dropping of the atomic bombs was not so much the last military act of the Second World War, as the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia now in progress.” The Japanese had already offered to negotiate peace terms, while a U.S. invasion of Japan was still in the planning stage and was not to take place for some time. Rather than a result of the need “to save American lives,” as is commonly claimed, the haste in dropping the bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and then a second bomb on Nagasaki three days later, had to do with the fact that the Soviet Union was preparing to enter the war against Japan on August 8, commencing their offensive in Manchuria on August 9. The U.S. objective, Blackett explained, was thus to force an unconditional Japanese surrender before the Soviets could advance very far into Manchuria, and to ensure that the Japanese surrender was to the United States alone.²⁰

……………………………………………………………………………….Blackett showed in Fear, War and the Bomb that there was strong sentiment initially in strategic circles in the United States for using the atomic bomb on Soviet cities in a first strike, since the USSR did not at that time have the bomb and was not expected to develop it and have a stockpile until 1953. In 1948, Winston Churchill had argued for threatening the Soviet Union with a preventative nuclear war.

…………………………………………………………………………… Despite his enormous prestige as a Nobel laureate in physics and as the founder of military operational research, Blackett’s attempt to promote a rational, minimalist deterrence strategy downplaying or even removing nuclear weapons resulted in Cold War-style attacks on him as a Communist fellow traveler…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The U.S. Pursuit of Nuclear Primacy: From 1991 to Now

It is one of the great ironies of our time that the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War led to the immediate triumph of the maximum deterrence doctrine in Washington and the pursuit of nuclear primacy through the development of counterforce capabilities. Despite nuclear arms agreements initially put into place and reductions in nuclear warheads, the basic structure of nuclear forces was left intact, while Washington saw this as a chance to secure global nuclear primacy or true first-strike capability, and thus absolute nuclear dominance.

Since the U.S. nuclear strategy is based on counterforce, building the capability for a first strike arriving as a “bolt from the blue,” with antimissile systems picking off the few weapons that survive, it requires the unification of “offensive” and “defensive” nuclear weapons.⁵¹ The overall goal is ensuring the non-survivability of command-and-control centers and nuclear weapons systems on the other side. Antiballistic missile systems, which are regarded as practically useless in defending against a full-scale first strike, are not mainly defensive weapons, but are meant to ensure that the few nuclear weapons in the country attacked that manage to survive in the face of a first strike are picked off before they can reach their targets. Hence, nuclear missile defense systems are chiefly intended to enhance first-strike capability.⁵²……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Washington’s reductions in the number of nuclear warheads, in line with parallel reductions by Moscow, appear to have been aimed at cooling nuclear tensions. However, this policy conformed to its overall counterforce strategy, as redundancy in the sheer numbers of such weapons is one of the main means of ensuring the survival of a nuclear deterrent. Coupled with the modernization of its nuclear weapons systems for greater accuracy and enhanced means of detection of nuclear submarines and mobile ground-based missiles, the United States was able to move rapidly toward its goal of nuclear primacy…………………………………………………………..

The United States, through NATO, has always relied on a first-strike strategy based on both nonstrategic and strategic nuclear weapons, forming the core of NATO’s defense, first against the Soviet Union’s conventional forces, and then against those of Russia, under the umbrella of U.S. “extended deterrence.”⁶⁵ Although the Soviet Union, like China today, had a no-first-strike policy—while post-Soviet Russia has declared that it will only use nuclear weapons in a first strike if the Russian state/territory is directly threatened—all U.S. presidents down to the present office-holder have reconfirmed U.S. first-strike policy.⁶⁶

For Washington, nuclear weapons (both strategic and tactical) are “on the table” all over the world, even in some cases against non-nuclear powers, a policy reinforced by the imperial outreach of the United States, which maintains at least eight hundred military bases abroad.⁶⁷ ……………………………………………………………………..

In 2014, the United States backed the Maidan color revolution/coup in Ukraine, which removed the democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych. This led to a civil war in Ukraine between the government in Kyiv controlled by NATO-backed Ukrainian nationalists, on the one hand, and Russian-speaking separatists in the Donbass region, supported by Russia, on the other. In 2022, Russia, after NATO continually ignored its red lines, firmly intervened on the side of the separatists. Faced with a U.S./NATO proxy war in Ukraine, Russia put its nuclear forces on alert.⁷⁰ Suddenly, a global thermonuclear exchange endangering the entire global population with annihilation (via nuclear winter) became an imminent threat……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

U.S. Hegemonic Decline and the Threat of Nuclear Armageddon

U.S. nuclear strategists and military planners, nearly all of whom today are maximalists, do not, as a rule, refer in any of their analyses to the full effects of global thermonuclear exchange, even when a full-scale nuclear war is contemplated. Thus, there is no mention of nuclear winter, which would annihilate almost the entire global human population, even though this has been affirmed over and over in scientific studies.⁸³

More often, U.S. military planners today contend that a first-strike counterforce strategy with relatively “low-yield” strategic nuclear weapons (though generally greater in yield than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) can decapitate the second-strike capability of the other side, through a bolt from the blue, eliminating the possibility of a massive retaliation. Accompanying this are plans for limited nuclear war that presume that the country being attacked will be able to distinguish between a partial attack and a true first strike and can be counted on to respond in a similarly “limited” manner, without a threat of escalation.

. Again and again, however, these assumptions, though governing U.S. nuclear strategy, have been shown to be false and irrational…………………………………………………………..

Today, the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine on the Russian border and Washington’s threatening behavior toward Beijing over Taiwan (recognized by the entire world as part of China, but with a different government) have brought the issue of a general thermonuclear exchange to the forefront of world concern.

…………………………………. the U.S. maximalist nuclear strategy, ………., is justified today in nuclear deterrence circles in terms of a supposed moral asymmetry that places the United States uniquely above other nations……………………………………………………………………

The U.S. maximalist nuclear strategy, rooted in the assumption that the United States can dominate at all stages of conventional and nuclear escalation and even win a nuclear war, is a major factor in inducing a false sense of power on the part of decision-makers, leading to Washington’s aggressiveness toward Beijing and Moscow in the present New Cold War. The most likely result of the current Western view that nuclear weapons can be used to achieve political and military ends is that they will indeed end up being used, with the destruction of virtually all of humanity.⁸⁹ ……………………………

Notes……………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://monthlyreview.org/2024/02/01/the-u-s-quest-for-nuclear-primacy/

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Tripling nuclear energy by 2050 will take a miracle, and miracles don’t happen.

“To protect the climate, we must abate the most carbon at the least cost—and in the least time—so we must pay attention to carbon, cost, and time, not to carbon alone.”

—Nuclear power fails both the tests of cost and time.

It is time to abandon the idea that further expanding nuclear technology can help with mitigating climate change

Farrukh A Chishtie, M V Ramana, Saturday 03 February 2024, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/tripling-nuclear-energy-by-2050-will-take-a-miracle-and-miracles-don-t-happen-94249

The recent COP28 climate conference held in Dubai saw a concerted effort by a few governments to promote expanding nuclear energy as a solution to the climate crisis. Led by the US Department of Energy, a pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050 attracted a mere 22 countries. The contrast in ambition and global support with an agreement on tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030—signed by 123 countries, and enshrined in the final outcome document—couldn’t be greater. But even this level of ambition, i.e., tripling capacity by 2050, is inappropriate when it comes to nuclear energy.

Between 1996 and 2022, the proportion of global electricity generated by nuclear reactors has dropped . This decline stands in sharp contrast to the remarkable upward trajectory observed in renewable energy sources, particularly solar and wind power. Over the same period, the share of global electricity produced by modern forms of renewable energy has gone from a mere 1.2 per cent to 14.4 per cent.

The difference is only set to grow. Investment in renewable energy sources is growing rapidly, reaching a record of , constituting 74 per cent of all power generation investments in 2022, while nuclear and coal accounted for only 8 per cent each. Solar photovoltaics, especially when built at large (utility) scale, has become the least costly option for new electricity capacity in recent years; in 2020, the International Energy Agency pronounced that solar is “the new king of the world’s electricity markets”.

As of mid-2023, there were just 407 operable nuclear reactors worldwide, which is 31 below the peak of 438 reactors in 2002, with a combined capacity of 365 gigawatts. These reactors are mostly old ones, built decades ago; the average age of the fleet has grown from 11.3 years in 1990 to 31.4 years in 2023. For nuclear energy to even maintain its current level of electricity production, most of these reactors will have to replaced. As detailed below, any attempt to replace nuclear capacity will be exorbitant. Because of these high costs, and rapid pace of building renewables, nuclear energy can simply not maintain its share of electricity production.

The decline in nuclear capacity is not due to lack of interest from governments. Between 2002 and 2023, there was a so-called nuclear renaissance. In the United States, the Bush administration’s 2005 Energy Policy Act offered numerous incentives, such as loan guarantees, to promote nuclear power. Spurred by these incentives, US electricity companies proposed building more than 30 reactors, many of them expected to start operating by 2021.

Only four of these reactors proceeded to actual construction but two of these reactors in the state of South Carolina were abandoned after $9 billion was spent because of massive cost increases and time delays. That led the Westinghouse Electric Company, a subsidiary of Japanese company Toshiba and the largest historic builder of nuclear power plants in the world, to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The remaining two reactors were built at the Vogtle site in Georgia. The first of these units began operating in 2023, taking over 10 years from when construction started—well above the “36 months” that the reactor’s designer, the Westinghouse company, had promised. Costs rose from an estimate of $14 billion when construction started to over $35 billion. This is in the United States, the country with historically the largest nuclear fleet.

In France, the country with the most reliance on nuclear energy, the Flamanville-3 nuclear reactor is now estimated to cost around $15 billion—four times what was forecasted when Électricité de France began building it. Historically, both in the United States and France, costs have risen as more reactors were built, and so we might expect future nuclear plants to be more expensive.

The other reason to expect future costs to go up is because of the push for small modular reactors (SMRs) to revive the nuclear industry. Small reactors lose out on economies of scale, and therefore start off with an economic disadvantage. Even if their absolute cost is lower than that of a large nuclear reactor, they are more expensive when compared on the basis of how much electricity they can provide (i.e., on a per megawatt basis).

A project involving six NuScale small modular reactors that was proposed to be built in Idaho was estimated to cost $9.3 billion for just 462 megawatts of power capacity. In comparison to the Vogtle project in Georgia, when that project was at a comparable stage—that is, when it was still on paper—the estimate for the UAMPS project is around 250 per cent more than the initial per megawatt cost of the Vogtle project.

SMRs have also suffered construction delays. In Russia, the first SMR that has been deployed is the KLT-40S, based on the design of reactors used in the small fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers that Russia has operated for decades. Yet, the KLT-40S, which was expected to take three years to build actually took 13 years. That is even more than the large reactors mentioned above.

These delays also underscore what energy analyst Amory Lovins pointed out: “To protect the climate, we must abate the most carbon at the least cost—and in the least time—so we must pay attention to carbon, cost, and time, not to carbon alone.” Nuclear power fails both the tests of cost and time. Investing further into nuclear technology with its concomitant loss of time will accentuate the unjust and unequal impacts on countries in the Global South, who are already dealing with severe climate impacts because developed countries like the United States have not reduced their carbon emissions in accord with their financial capacities.

Given these hard economic realities, what explains the pledge put out by the US government? Looking at who signed it and who didn’t suggests that the pledge is out there for geopolitical reasons. Note, for example, that Russia and China are missing from the list of signatories to the declaration: China is the country building the most nuclear reactors domestically and Russia is the country exporting the most reactors. No country from South Asia joined this pledge either.

In his essay about miracles, the 18th century British philosopher David Hume wrote “A wise man…proportions his belief to the evidence”. (Today, we might say, a wise person proportions their belief to the evidence.) The evidence that nuclear energy cannot be scaled up quickly is overwhelming. It is time to abandon the idea that further expanding nuclear technology can help with mitigating climate change. Rather, we need to focus on expanding renewables and associated technologies while implementing stringent efficiency measures to rapidly effect an energy transition.

Farrukh A Chishtie is an atmospheric and earth observation scientist with extensive experience in various experimental and modelling disciplines. He has more than 18 years of research experience, and is presently leading the Peaceful Society, Science and Innovation Foundation, a non-profit organisation dedicated to serving communities afflicted by climate change, wars and pandemics.

MV Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. He is the author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India (Penguin Books, 2012) and Nuclear is not the Solution: The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change (forthcoming from Verso books)

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Czech Republic / Government Seeks Binding Tenders For Four Nuclear Reactors From EDF And KHNP

By Kamen Kraev, 1 February 2024

Prague hopes to cut down new-build costs via a ‘package’ deal

The Czech government announced on Wednesday (31 January) that it will be seeking binding bids from two technology vendors, France’s EDF and South Korea’s KHNP, for the construction of up to four new reactor units at the existing Dukovany nuclear power station……. (Subscribers only) m https://www.nucnet.org/news/government-seeks-binding-tenders-for-four-nuclear-reactors-from-edf-and-khnp-2-4-2024

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Strong opposition on plans to store nuclear waste in East Yorkshire

A consultation event took place in Patrington yesterday

Andy Marsh, 2nd Feb 2024

There appears to be very strong opposition to plans to store nuclear waste in East Yorkshire

A series of public pop-in centres will give people in the area more information about the proposals for Holderness.

We were at the first consultation event in Patrington yesterday.

Another is being held in Withernsea later.

There are some who were convinced by the plans but many weren’t.

I would oppose it 100 per cent

Beverley and Holderness MP Graham Stuart has called for a referendum.

Here are some of the views of people we spoke to:

“They don’t know exactly where the site is going to be.”

“Somebody has to have it – to be honest I’ll be dead before all the this takes place anyway.

“I would oppose it – 100 per cent – on behalf of my children, my grandchildren and my future great grandchildren.”

We feel like guinea pigs

“This is bad for this community.”

“The whole of Holderness – everybody involved in it – it can only lead to bad things.”

“I think it’ll be a positive thing for the area if it happens here.”

“There are terms such as may and could – that’s not absolute certainty.”

“It feels like we’re just guinea pigs.”……………………………………………… https://planetradio.co.uk/greatest-hits/east-yorkshire-north-lincolnshire/news/strong-opposition-on-plans-to-store-nuclear-waste-east-yorkshire/

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

‘Odd’ Hinkley Point C salt marsh plan has Somerset locals up in arms

Anger at EDF proposals to flood wildlife-rich farmland as ‘compensation’ for killing millions of fish at nuclear site

Steven Morris, Guardian, 3 Feb 24

tanding in a field close to the Somerset coast surrounded by her flock of sheep, Juliet Pankhurst shook her head. “It doesn’t make any sense,” she said. “They want to flood this land that has been farmed for generations. We’ve got great crested newts in the pond over there, water voles in the ditches, hares all over the place. They’ll be lost.”

Her partner, Mark Halliwell, shrugged. “But they’ll get their way – they always do. No matter what scheme they come up with.”

The “they” in question is EDF, the French company building the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station a few miles down the coast from the farm. The scheme is to create a salt marsh on the land as – its word – “compensation” for dropping an innovative plan to stop millions of fish from swimming into the plant’s cooling system and being killed.

“The whole thing sounds a bit odd,” said Pankhurst.

Usually, creating salt marshes – excellent wildlife habitats and carbon stores – is a positive story. This one has been greeted with anger and scepticism in the local area and farther afield.

It takes a bit of unravelling. As part of the Hinkley Point C project, EDF had said it would save millions of fish by installing an “acoustic fish deterrent” (AFD) system. The Bristol Channel and Severn estuary are hugely important habitats for species including salmon and eel.

Under the system, almost 300 underwater “sound projectors” would have boomed noise louder than a jumbo jet into the sea to deter fish from entering the plant’s water intakes, nearly two miles offshore.

But EDF has changed its mind, arguing that installing and maintaining the system would risk the lives of divers working in the fast-flowing, murky water and expressing concerns about the impact of the noise on porpoises, seals, whales.

According to the UK government’s Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, between 18 and 46 tonnes of fish will be lost a year if the AFD plan is abandoned.

So as “compensation”, EDF has proposed to create or enhance native oyster beds, kelp forest and seagrass habitat, and, contentiously, create about 313 hectares (773 acres) of new salt marsh along the River Parrett at Pawlett Hams, an area of wildlife-rich grassland managed by about 30 landowners, who face having to sell up and move on.

Scores of people, under the watchful eye of a police community support officer, turned up for a meeting at Pawlett village hall this week as part of EDF’s consultation on the proposal.

The proposal includes diverting a stretch of the King Charles III England coast path inland. One villager, Rachel Fitton, who walks at Pawlett Hams, was in tears at the prospect of the land being flooded. “It’s so sad for people who love that area,” she said. Her husband, Jason Fitton, said: “It’s insanity, disgraceful. Think of all the hedgerows and wildlife that will be lost.”

The Hampshire company Fish Guidance Systems, which had expected to provide the AFD system, is also unimpressed at EDF’s change of direction, saying it was like building wind turbines that would kill millions of birds and offering to build a nature reserve next door.

FGS says elver migration from the Atlantic is expected to be particularly hard, hit with eels “likely to be sucked into the Hinkley intakes” and only a few making it to the Somerset Levels and other habitats……………………….https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/02/odd-hinkley-point-c-salt-marsh-plan-has-somerset-locals-up-in-arms—

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, UK | Leave a comment

The West: guilty of genocide

Doing Goebbels proud

The moral vacuity of the collective West

JULIAN MACFARLANE, FEB 2, 2024

A successful politician in a liberal democracy requires certain gifts. A lack of conscience is one, glib deception is another, hypocrisy, still another.

Political policy is for the benefit of the politician who makes it – not for the people who think he represents them. A politician has a constituency of one – himself.

Fortunately for politicians, there are many kindred spirits in the media whose interest is not the truth, but their own advancement. Western politicians and the media have a symbiotic relationship like sharks in the symbiotic the Remora fish that attach themselves to scavenge scraps.

And ordinary people?

They are prey…………………………………………………………

This is what is really behind the current decline of the Collective West —a moral blindness which distorts reality—and staggering hypocrisy.

The suspension of UNRWA is genocide

The hypocritical attacks on UNRWA are a good example.

The ICJ ruled that: Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

UNRWA is the only agency currently capable of providing the “basic services and humanitarian assistance” to Gaza and the Palestinians that they require— immediately. With the suspension of promised aid, however, UNRWA may have to cease operation in Gaza by the end of February.

By the time that other UN agencies finally get involved, much of the population of Gaza will be dead. UNRWA provides a variety of services in cooperation with the local elected government which is of course Hamas. That means schools, medical services, and food aid. So, getting rid of UNRWA means destroying Gazan society and the community and the means by which it survives—the “group conditions of life”.

It’s genocide within the usual definitions of the term.

Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories:

Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

There are a number of other serious, violent crimes that do not fall under the specific definition of genocide. They include crimes against humanity, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and mass killing.

Interfering with UNRWA’s efforts is clearly #3.

Ipso facto that makes states suspending agreed-upon aid to UNRWA as guilty of genocide as the Israelis themselves

Defunding UNRWA is another heinous act of genocide.

Jewish Voice for Peace

Let us keep in mind that defunding UNRWA vitiates the legitimacy of the United Nations which will become a pale shadow of the League of Nations.

Accusation in a mirror

Accuse the other of that of which you are guilty. Joseph Goebbels.

Goebbels must be looking at the Zionists in admiration, happy that he will soon have a lot of company in Hell.

Israel’s allegations are just that— allegations—unproven.

Despite that, UNRWA reacted immediately to those accusations, dismissing nine of its local Palestinian employees who may or may not have been also members of Hamas—but were probably as sympathetic as the rest of the Gazan population.

Those nine employees represent 0.0003 % of the agency’s total workforce or 0.00075 in Gaza.

Let us also keep in mind that the Israelis now have an established history of making wild claims and accusations later proven to be false —HAMAS’s massacres of civilians— actually committed by the IDF—rapes and mutilations that did not occu—baby killings and the like.

Oh, and the “incitement of hatred’ in schools – quite unlike the peace and love advocated by Netanyahu—and designed to justify the killing of children.

Despite the unique challenges Israel faces in its war against Hamas, it has implemented more measures to prevent civilian casualties than any other military in history. Newsweek.

According to parasitic media like Newsweek we can discount genocidal bombing the numerous documented war crimes, including execution of civilians, and all sorts of atrocities.

Hypocrisy generates a kind of sick logic.

Israel’s imperative is to destroy the Gazan people—the new Amaleks.

There are no innocent people in the Gaza Strip because “everyone has a connection to Hamas. Avigdor Lieberman, Defense Minister, 2018.

It’s not just Newsweek that tries to support the credibility of the incredible —and justify the demolition of UNRWA until “the allegations are clarified”— which will be never…………………………. https://julianmacfarlane.substack.com/p/the-west-guilty-of-genocide

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES | Leave a comment

US unleashes strikes across Middle East

RT Fri, 02 Feb 2024

Washington has launched a new bombing campaign against Iranian-backed fighters in Iraq and Syria.

The Pentagon has commenced retaliation strikes in response to a drone attack that killed three US troops at a secretive base in Jordan, targeting dozens of sites in Iraq and Syria linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) Quds Force and affiliated militia groups.

“Our response began today” and “will continue at times and places of our choosing,” US President Joe Biden announced on Friday night. The airstrikes started around midnight on Saturday local time and hit more than 85 Iranian-linked targets, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a statement.

The bombings come nearly one week after a drone packed with explosives struck Tower 22, a US base in Jordan located near the Syrian and Iraqi borders, killing three soldiers and wounding more than 40 others. The attack, which the US blamed on the Iranian-backed Islamic Resistance in Iraq, marked the first deaths of American troops in a wave of assaults triggered by the Israel-Hamas war.

04 February 202416:35 GMTUS airstrikes on Syria, Iraq and Yemen over the last two days were only the “first round” of Washington’s military response to last week’s drone attack on a US base in Jordan, White House national security spokesman John Kirby told NBC.

“We intend to take additional strikes and additional action to continue to send a clear message that the United States will respond when our forces are attacked or people are killed,” he said.

Kirby promised “more steps – some seen, some perhaps unseen” in comments to CBS, while stressing that he would not describe the planned US actions in the region as “some open-ended military campaign.”

16:15 GMTFurther aggression from the US and UK will not sway Yemen’s Houthis from their decision to act in support of the Palestinians of Gaza, the group’s spokesperson Mohammed Abdulsalam said in a statement, adding that the movement’s military capabilities had been forged during years of brutal war and would not be easily destroyed.

14:51 GMT

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has announced on X (formerly Twitter) that British Typhoon fighter jets “successfully took out specific Houthi military targets in Yemen, further degrading the Houthis’ capabilities.”

He denounced as “unacceptable” the attacks on merchant vessels in the Red Sea being perpetrated by Yemeni Shiite Houthi militants. The PM added that it is London’s duty to “protect innocent lives and preserve freedom.”

Earlier in the day, the US Central Command revealed that a series of combined air- and sea-launched strikes had taken out at least 36 Houthi targets in 13 locations across Yemen…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The US-led coalition has targeted Yemen with 48 airstrikes in the past few hours, Houthi spokesman Brigadier General Yahya Saree has said on X (formerly Twitter). The US Central Command earlier announced that the bombing campaign had hit at least 36 targets in 13 locations in the country.

“These attacks will not deter us from our moral, religious and humanitarian stance in support of the steadfast Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip,” Saree insisted, adding that the actions of the US and the UK “won’t pass without response and punishment.”

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has affirmed his support of Washington’s latest military actions, calling the strikes “proportionate” and “retaliatory.”

“You can’t have the sort of attacks that we’ve seen and see no response – that’s whether it be the actions of the Houthis in targeting our trade, whether it be the attacks that occurred on Americans in Jordan,” Albanese told ABC on Sunday,

Albanese said he does not believe the US-led strikes could spark a wider conflict in the Middle East, insisting “we want to see the area settled down.” https://www.rt.com/news/591739-us-retaliation-strikes-updates/

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | MIDDLE EAST, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Tell it to the Chieftain: Nuclear power plants and Is advanced nuclear a pipe dream?

Zach Hillstrom, Pueblo Chieftain, https://www.chieftain.com/story/opinion/letters/2024/02/04/tell-it-to-the-chieftain/72438864007/

The risks of nuclear power plants

Nuclear power plants require uranium mined, enriched, refined, placed in fuel rods, and inserted into water in a reactor. They have to be replenished at least every 24 months. This spent radioactive waste must be isolated and stored in vessels on site because there is no safe place to take it. They will remain radioactive for thousands of years, possibly corroding, leaking, and contaminating the environment.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, (SMRs) as proposed for Pueblo, generate more nuclear waste than conventional nuclear power plants, according to Stanford University and the University of British Columbia.

Accidents happen. At the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, nuclear weapons’ waste is stored underground, but in 2014, the ventilation system was compromised, releasing contaminated air, according to the EPA. Not only can there be accidents, but these sites pose opportunities for terrorists.

In 1970, Xcel Energy began operating a nuclear power plant adjacent to the Prairie Island Indian Community. According to MINNPOST, in the 1990s, the Minnesota State Legislature approved Xcel’s storing radioactive waste on tribal property. The tribe objected but lost. However, in 2003, it accepted $10 million from Xcel. Sadly, money talks, especially for marginalized communities lacking other funding and Pueblo is in that category.

Pueblo already has a Superfund site just upriver in Canon City. Cotter, the now-defunct uranium processing plant, has 4.5 million gallons of radioactive waste just sitting because the cleanup company went belly up.

Nuclear power’s radioactive waste just isn’t clean. And does anyone who understands the risks nuclear poses actually believe new businesses might come here with their families to live next door to a nuclear power plant? PEDCO, please step up! Bring in some big, clean industries to make up the taxes!

-Marti Osborn, Pueblo

Re: Is advanced nuclear a pipe dream or Pueblo’s saving grace?

-Joseph P Griego, Pueblo

Frances Koncilija says that Pueblo needs to get its own nuclear reactor. At the risk of taking Koncilija’s argument out of context, “risk” is the operative term when it is proposed to build one of Bill Gates’ next-generation TerraPower nuclear power plants, that is still largely unproven for safety, to undergo controlled nuclear fission within Pueblo city limits.

Xcel would have to spend $4 billion or more to do this, knowing full well that capital expense would be passed on to their ratepayers, as that’s what investor-owned utilities like Xcel Energy and Black Hills Energy do to make massive profits for their shareholders. Black Hills built their $500 million Pueblo Airport Generating Station, a natural gas-fired plant that their ratepayers have been paying through the nose for. So why, in Frances’ name, would Pueblo need to get its own nuclear reactor?

Electricity generated at Comanche 3 is exported to Xcel’s customers in the greater Denver metro area. Xcel wants to convert Comanche 3 to a nuclear facility to continue that operational practice. Why doesn’t Xcel instead persuade their customers to accept this proposal nearer their generation territory in northeastern rather than southeastern Colorado? That’s because Xcel’s customers there would most likely tell Xcel in no uncertain terms where to stick their nuclear reactors and the radioactive waste they produce even if the reactors use a safer form of nuclear waste as fuel in the first place.

Xcel Energy and all its apologists appear to argue that Pueblo should buy into this boondoggle because it needs the money, a saving grace also known as a pipedream — an exploitive one at that because Pueblo is expected to take all the risks associated with nuclear energy.

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Chinese nuclear fuel engineer Li Guangchang caught in anti-corruption net targeting ‘high-risk’ areas

Li, former nuclear fuel director at China National Nuclear Corporation, is suspected of serious violations of discipline and law, CCDI says
Communist Party’s top corruption watchdog says he is undergoing disciplinary inspection and supervision, but website post offers no details

Amber Wang in Beijing, 4 Feb, 2024

A leading Chinese nuclear fuel engineer has been placed under investigation, becoming the latest case in Beijing’s sweeping crackdown on corruption in “high-risk” areas such as energy and state-owned enterprises.

Li Guangchang, a member of the science and technology committee of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), is suspected of committing serious violations of discipline and law, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) said in a statement on its website…………… https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3250877/chinese-nuclear-fuel-engineer-li-guangchang-latest-corruption-net-clean-drive-high-risk-areas?campaign=3250877&module=perpetual_scroll_0&pgtype=article

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | China, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Palestinians Uncover Dozens Killed Execution-Style in Schoolyard in Gaza

Palestinian civilians discovered bodies blindfolded and with their legs and hands tied back. By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUT https://truthout.org/articles/palestinians-uncover-dozens-killed-execution-style-in-schoolyard-in-gaza/ 4 Feb 24

ozens of bodies of Palestinians have been uncovered in a mass grave in a schoolyard in northern Gaza, with witnesses saying they appeared to have been killed “execution style” by Israeli forces. A human rights lawyer has said the killings are “clearly a war crime.”

Palestinians uncovered more than 30 bodies buried in northern Gaza in black bags with their hands and feet tied and blindfolded, according to witnesses.

“As we were cleaning, we came across a pile of rubble inside the schoolyard. We were shocked to find out that dozens of dead bodies were buried under this pile,” one witness told Al Jazeera on Wednesday. “The moment we opened the black plastic bags, we found the bodies, already decomposed. They were blindfolded, legs and hands tied. The plastic cuffs were used on their hands and legs and cloth straps around their eyes and heads.”

Video and photos appearing to show the bags containing the bodies show that they are zip-tied shut with tags with barcodes and writing in Hebrew.

The witnesses’ accounts line up with previous reports of Israeli soldiers killing Palestinians execution style in other locations, including reporting that soldiers had lined up Palestinians, including newborn babies, and shot them point blank at another school in northern Gaza in December. Around the same time, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor reported that Israeli soldiers had been killing dozens of elderly Palestinians in field executions after ordering them to leave their homes or after releasing them from being detained without charges.

Other videos and photos in December have shown Israeli soldiers stripping Palestinian men and making them kneel on the street in Gaza with their hands tied behind their backs. Israeli officials confirmed that soldiers were detaining them to check if they were members of Hamas forces.

The execution-style killings are further proof that Israel’s assault on Gaza is tantamount to a genocide, Palestinian Canadian human rights lawyer Diana Buttu told Al Jazeera on Thursday.

“This is precisely why Israel was taken to the International Court of Justice with the accusation that it is committing genocide,” Buttu said.

“Israel has been committing war crimes against Palestinians since 1948 and nobody has ever held Israel to account,” she continued. “This is clearly a war crime.”

Buttu added that the zip ties on the body bags and the state of the bodies show that Israeli soldiers feel “emboldened,” with Israeli soldiers and officials rarely facing consequences for war crimes in the past, she said.

The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is calling for an international investigation into the allegations that Israeli forces are killing people execution-style.

“The Ministry believes that the discovery of this mass grave in this brutal form reflects the scale of the tragedy to which Palestinian civilians are exposed, the mass massacres and executions of even detainees, in flagrant and gross violation of all relevant international norms and laws,” the ministry said.

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, weapons and war | Leave a comment

U.S. Congress about to weaken its oversight of weapons sales to foreign countries.

this bill would mark a major reduction in Congress’s ability to stop dangerous or ill founded weapons transfers to foreign military forces.

It would mandate that the United States build up an even larger (taxpayer funded) military industry in order to meet the world’s weapons needs in a timely manner! It would help the arms industry divert more taxpayer funds into its coffers.

Congress poised to cede more foreign weapons oversight. Why?

New bill would speed up the delivery of deadly arms while scaling back the ability of elected representatives to monitor the implications

LORA LUMPE WILLIAM HARTUNG, FEB 02, 2024, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/congress-weapons-sales/
At a time of record U.S. weapons sales and many wars, the House Foreign Affairs Committee has decided that Congress should provide less, rather than more oversight of the booming business.

Next week, the committee is marking up the Foreign Military Sales Technical, Industrial and Governmental Engagement for Readiness Act. But don’t be fooled by the mundane title — this bill would mark a major reduction in Congress’s ability to stop dangerous or ill founded weapons transfers to foreign military forces. In short, this proposed legislation would speed up the delivery of deadly weapons while scaling back the ability of our elected representatives to assess the security implications of such transfers.

Because arms shipments are such an important part of warmaking and therefore U.S. foreign policy, current law requires the executive branch to notify Congress of proposed weapons deals over a certain dollar threshold. Congress then has 15 or 30 days — depending on whether the country is a treaty ally or not — to review the transaction before the administration can proceed.

During that review period Congress can pass a joint resolution to block the sale. Doing so is extraordinarily difficult in such a short time, and has in fact never been done. The closest Congress came was in 2019 when both the Senate and the House passed a resolution prohibiting the transfer of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, over concerns that they would use the bombs to further devastate Yemen.

President Trump vetoed the effort, and Congress could not override his veto, showing that the legislative branch needs more, rather than less ability to challenge weapons supply to foreign armies.

But if Congress is not even notified about a sale the administration is planning, there is absolutely no chance it can block the transfer. This arms industry-backed bill the House is marking up raises the dollar threshold for notice to Congress substantially – by 66%! – and would dramatically reduce the number of potential sales Congress is told about each year.

Even without the proposed threshold increase, we know that the volume of deals that fall below Congress’s radar can be significant.

The State Department Inspector General documented that over a four-year period at the height of their brutal intervention in Yemen the administration provided more than $11 billion dollars in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE that fell below the congressional notification threshold. This included equipment that Congress had placed holds on due to concerns over the devastating impact on civilians. Congress was not aware of these transfers at the time they occurred.

So you might ask: What problem is Congress seeking to address with this bill? Why should Congress decide to receive less rather than more information about proposed deadly weapons transfers? Proponents suggest that raising the threshold simply keeps up with inflation and allows U.S. companies to remain competitive.

But U.S. weapons companies already dominate the global arms trade, so the idea that maintaining current levels of minimal congressional vetting will hurt their competitiveness doesn’t pass muster.

Others say that this notification process slows sales down. But the State Department is already approving 95% of government-negotiated Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases within 48 hours and has seen record increases in both FMS and industry-direct arms sales over the last several years.

In addition to exempting more sales from its own oversight, with this bill Congress would require the secretary of state to take weapons from U.S. government stocks for delivery to foreign forces in cases where the production and delivery of the weapons is taking more than three years. It would achieve this through the use of “Drawdown Authority,” an emergency mechanism used at a very large scale to move weapons from U.S. stockpiles to Ukraine over the past two years.

Specifically, it would require the administration to take weapons from U.S. stockpiles if arms are not delivered within three years of when Congress is notified of a potential sale. This provision would establish an arbitrary time commitment that fails to reflect the many concerns that may arise in the intervening period — such as a change in government, the outbreak of war, or serious human rights violations or widespread civilian harm by the recipient government forces.

It would also prioritize foreign armies over that of the United States. What problem is this addressing? Answer: It would mandate that the United States build up an even larger (taxpayer funded) military industry in order to meet the world’s weapons needs in a timely manner! It would help the arms industry divert more taxpayer funds into its coffers.

In sum, if Congress were to pass this bill, it would have less knowledge of which weapons are being transferred to which countries, and less ability to ensure that transfers are consistent with U.S. law, policy, and interests. Trashing this bill should be Congress’s first step towards taking back more power to review and block foreign weapons deals, not less.

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

U.S. admits it hasn’t verified Israel’s UNRWA claims, media ignores it

the media coverage, which is, once again, treating Israeli allegations as proven facts. Nor could you tell by the U.S. response. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, “We haven’t had the ability to investigate [the allegations] ourselves. But they are highly, highly credible.”

That is a stunning statement. They are simply taking Israel’s word for it, and on that basis, they are suspending aid to nearly two million people who need that aid more than anyone in the world.

Secretary Blinken admits that the U.S. has been unable to investigate the “evidence” presented by Israel claiming 13 of UNRWA’s 13,000 Gaza employees participated in October 7. Biden took Israel’s word for it anyway.

BY MITCHELL PLITNICK FEBRUARY 3, 2024

In the latest demonstration of the boundless cruelty of U.S. President Joe Biden and his despicable administration, they have turned the backbone of what little aid Palestinians in Gaza receive into a political football, to be toyed with and batted around while jeopardizing that support for people who are already near the edge of what any human, however brave, can possibly endure.

It’s the latest in what feels like an eternal cycle of the United States and Israel beating up on the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for political gain. There have been many hearings on Capitol Hill over the years bashing UNRWA and calling for either a complete structural overhaul of the agency or its dismantlement and absorption into the larger United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

The root of the attacks, prior to October 7, 2023, has been UNRWA’s unique mission which is to provide humanitarian assistance — including food, housing, medical aid, and the role that has taken up the bulk of its budget for years, education — to Palestinian refugees exclusively. Because of this mandate, Israel and its supporters blame UNRWA for the definition of “refugee” in the Palestinian context, which includes not only those made refugees by the 1948 and 1967 wars, but also their descendants born into refugee status.

Many on the pro-Israel and Israeli right and center believe doing away with UNRWA would essentially allow Israel to do away with Palestinian refugees because they believe UNRWA is the only thing maintaining that generational definition.

They’re wrong, of course. International law is clear on this point, as the UN states: “Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found. Both UNRWA and UNHCR recognize descendants as refugees on this basis, a practice that has been widely accepted by the international community, including both donors and refugee-hosting countries. Palestine refugees are not distinct from other protracted refugee situations such as those from Afghanistan or Somalia, where there are multiple generations of refugees, considered by UNHCR as refugees and supported as such. Protracted refugee situations are the result of the failure to find political solutions to their underlying political crises.”

There’s no ambiguity there, but that hasn’t stopped the controversy. ……………………………

Israelis have always known that they need the agency, despite all their hateful rhetoric about it. For years, Israel would bash UNRWA mercilessly in the media, but would always tell the United States that its operations were necessary, especially in Gaza. Without UNRWA, Israel would be expected to ensure that a humanitarian catastrophe did not ensue, so Israel needs the agency.

In 2018, emboldened by a reckless U.S. administration under Donald Trump, Netanyahu suddenly changed that position and called for the U.S. to dramatically cut its support of UNRWA. Trump eagerly did so. When Netanyahu made that sudden shift, it surprised and disturbed many in his own government who disagreed with the decision. Just about the only positive step Joe Biden took when entering office was to restore UNRWA’s funding. But Trump’s action made the question of UNRWA’s funding even more politically charged than it had always been.

Unable to investigate

The old cycle seems to be playing out again, but this time, the highly charged politics in Washington are more intricate.

On January 26, Israeli allegations against a dozen UNRWA employees surfaced. The agency immediately fired nine of them and said that two others were dead, hoping their swift and pre-emptive action would stave off rash U.S. actions. Nonetheless, the United States and a host of other countries immediately suspended funding for UNRWA, over the actions of 12 of over 30,000 employees, 13,000 of whom are in Gaza.

It’s worth pausing over that last fact for a moment. Twelve out of 13,000 Gaza employees have caused all of this, and it’s based on evidence that has not been made public. You’d never know that from much of the media coverage, which is, once again, treating Israeli allegations as proven facts. Nor could you tell by the U.S. response. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, “We haven’t had the ability to investigate [the allegations] ourselves. But they are highly, highly credible.”

That is a stunning statement. They are simply taking Israel’s word for it, and on that basis, they are suspending aid to nearly two million people who need that aid more than anyone in the world.

Recall that Israel, in October 2021, labeled six Palestinian organizations as being connected to “terrorist groups,” specifically referring to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The “evidence” Israel presented was so threadbare that European countries dismissed it as baseless, and even the Biden administration, which has repeatedly supported Israeli claims based on no evidence that turned out to be false, could not accept the Israeli charges, though it avoided explicitly calling out Israel’s attempted deception.

Yet now, Israel has presented a “dossier” that contains its case against the twelve UNRWA workers. The actual evidence has not been made public, and even the United States, as noted above, has admitted it can’t verify the Israeli claims. But the U.S. suspended UNRWA’s funding anyway and led seventeen other countries to follow suit. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Biden’s incompetence and mindless cruelty

For Biden, the hearings, as well as the general tone and tenor in Washington after years of bashing UNRWA, present a problem. If he doesn’t restore UNRWA’s funding, conditions in Gaza will grow much worse very quickly, and calls for a ceasefire will be overwhelming, as will Biden’s downward trend in polls. If he restores UNRWA’s funding, he will find himself under attack from Republicans as well as some Democrats.

In the wake of the hearing this week, one of Israel’s leading advocates in Congress, Brad Schneider (D-IL), bluntly stated, “We have to replace UNRWA with something else. I support getting rid of UNRWA.”………………………………….

Had Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken not reacted in knee-jerk fashion to the unsubstantiated Israeli allegations, this would be less of a problem. They could have noted that UNRWA immediately fired the workers in question, that it had launched an investigation, and that its work was needed now more than ever. Biden could then have talked about reviewing UNRWA over the coming weeks and months, and made some political show of it without jeopardizing the aid to Gaza, which even the Israeli government doesn’t want to see cut………………………..

Even government officials from both the Biden administration and the Netanyahu government have been forced to acknowledge the crucial role UNRWA plays. That this has become a political hot potato is not just a testament to Biden’s incompetence, but also to his mindless cruelty and unquenchable hostility to the Palestinian people. https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/u-s-admits-it-hasnt-verified-israels-unrwa-claims-media-ignores-it/—

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Hinkley C – don’t say I didn’t warn you!

In 2016, I called for Hinkley C to be scrapped. Now its commissioning has been pushed back to the end of the decade and its costs have ballooned to as much as £48 billion in 2024 money. I was right.

MICHAEL LIEBREICH, JAN 25, 2024

“The case for Hinkley Point C has collapsed: It’s time to scrap it.” This was the title of an article I wrote for City AM in July 2016.

The story so far

For those who have forgotten those heady days, a quick recap. July 2016 was one month after the UK voted for Brexit. Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne (whose pet project was Hinkley C, aided by energy minister in the previous Coalition government and currently LibDem leader, Ed Davey) had resigned. Theresa May had just taken over as Prime Minister.

The project already had a ghastly history. In the early 2000s, the nuclear industry, with French champion Areva in the lead (later driven into bankruptcy by cost overruns at Flamanville and Olkiluoto and rescued by EDF in 2017), announced a “Nuclear Renaissance” and was lobbying for a new build programme in the UK to replace aging plants set for retirement. In the absence of evidence, they claimed new plants would produce power for £24 per MWh (£39/MWh in 2024 money, or $50/MWh).

The Labour Party, long dead set against nuclear power, were convinced. In January 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared, in the preface to a White Paper on nuclear power entitled “Meeting the Energy Challenge” that “nuclear should have a role to play in the generation of electricity, alongside other low carbon technologies.” The White Paper estimated the total cost of building a 1.6GW nuclear plant at £2.8 billion – which would translate into £5.6 billion for Hinkley C’s 3.2GW (£9.0 billion or $11.5 billion in 2024 money).

EDF’s UK CEO Vincent de Rivaz was cock-a-hoop, predicting that Brits would be cooking their turkeys with power from Hinkley C by Christmas 2017. But remember that figure – £9.0 billion for 3.2GW.

By October 2013, Osborne and Davey had agreed a Contract for Difference with EDF for electricity production at a strike price of £92.50/MWh in 2012 money (£132/MWh in today’s money or $169/MWh) – rising with inflation for 35 years, but dropping to £87.50 (£125/MWh in today’s money or $173/MWh) if a second EPR were to be built. That EPR is Sizewell C – of which more later.

At that point, Hinkley C was expected to cost £16 billion in 2015 money (£22 billion in 2024 money or $28 billion). It was due to come online in 2023 and continue cooking Christmas turkeys for 60 years.

Since then, on five separate occasions EDF has announced that costs have increased, and the commissioning date pushed back. The only delay which was not fully in the control of EDF and it suppliers in the nuclear and construction industries was Covid – which can be blamed for around a year of delay and a couple of billion of cost increase, but not more.

Last week – yet another delay and cost increase

……………………. Now, I know that supporters of the project and hard-core nuclear fans will be bursting blood vessels at this point, desperate to jump in an explain that most of the difference between £9 billion and nearly £50 billion is down to financing cost resulting from the use of the CfD mechanism, regulatory cost, delay in government decision-making and so on. But I’m going to say it: I don’t care……………………………

How big things (don’t) get done

It is not like cost over-runs in nuclear projects are a big secret. The world’s leading academic expert on project management is Danish Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, author of How Big Things Get Done, who joined me on Cleaning Up last year. Having build a huge database of projects of different sources, he can definitively show that nuclear plants are worse only than Olympic Games in terms of cost over-runs. On average they go 120% over the budget, with 58% of them going a whopping 204% over budget.

The common trope among nuclear fans is that it is only in the western world that nuclear new build is either problematic or exorbitantly expensive, and this is driven by excessive regulation.

While excessive delays in emerging nuclear powers are certainly less common, there is no transparency over how this is achieved. There are ample examples of problems: the use of fake certification documents, the sealing of deals for reactor sales by military inducements, cutting corners on safety, failure to maintain control of the fuel supply chain, failure to disclose problems and accidents; unexplained accidents on aging plants.

There is also no transparency over the real cost of their plants. Put simply, these are are whatever their leaders say they are: it is they who decide the cost of capital, state guarantees, whether safety standards meet or exceed international standards, whether safety standards are enforced, the environmental standards applied to the supply chain, the speed projects proceed through licencing, the need or not to provision for decommissioning costs, the diversion of costs to military, energy or industrial budgets, and so on.

Back to 2016

Now let’s get back to Hinkley C, and 2016. One of the first things Theresa May did when she took over from David Cameron was to ask her security advisors to review the wisdom of allowing state-owned China General Nuclear to invest £6 billion in the project. In the end May backed down and allowed the investment to go ahead, but that is the background to my piece: the project’s future was in doubt, and it was the last realistic chance to kill it before tens of billions of pounds had been invested. And this is what I wrote: The case for Hinkley Point C has collapsed: It’s time to scrap it.

………………………………………………………………. It is worth remembering that while construction costs are in the £42 to £48 billion range, the 35 years of electricity at £87.50 or £92.50/MW in 2012 money, adjusted for inflation will cost UK energy users a gargantuan £111 or £116 billion over the next 35 years. Could we use that money better? You bet.

Summary

So there you have it. 2016 was a missed opportunity, most likely the last opportunity to scrap the benighted project, one of the worst blunders in the history of public procurement and of the UK’s energy industry.

Does that mean we should scrap it now? It’s almost certainly too late. EDF has probably spent so much on the project, that the net present value of its revenues exceeds the remaining cost to bring the project to completion

What I do know is that the UK must resist the French government demands that it put its hand in the public pocket for yet more money to support the project. The whole point of the structure put in place, with its super-generous and inflation-protected CfD strike price, was that EDF was to bear the risk of cost over-runs. These will come back to bite UK energy users in the form of higher power costs from Sizewell C, should that project go ahead. If the UK taxpayers have to bear the cost of cost over-runs, let’s just nationalise and be done with any pretence that the market bears any risk from nuclear power projects.

I know many will say I am just being anti-nuclear.

No, I’m pro-nuclear……..

………………… to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “if Hinkley C, Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Vogtle are the way the nuclear industry treats its projects, it does not deserve to have any”. https://mliebreich.substack.com/p/hinkley-c-dont-say-i-didnt-warn-you

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

French firm EDF shows its power over the UK govt – no judicial review now required over fish protection from Hinkley nuclear cooling system.

In 2021, EDF was formally told it must fit an acoustic fish deterrent
(AFD) system to the massive seawater intakes of the cooling system. It was
considered necessary to “protect the marine life of the Severn Estuary
catchment area and its nine great rivers: Parrett, Avon, Severn, Wye, Usk,
Ebbw, Rhymney, Taff, Ely and their tributaries where many fish species go
to breed”.

Without AFD it is estimated that 22 billion fish would be
ingested over the planned 60-year life of the plant, of which half would be
killed in the process.

Not so final. EDF appealed against this but in 2022
the then environment secretary, George Eustice, refused the appeal in
definitive terms: “The decision on this appeal is final [and] can only be
challenged in the courts by judicial review.”

Final? EDF, which has been
running rings around the government and bullying ministers (Eyes passim)
since it bought the British nuclear fleet in 2008, simply went
regulator-shopping on the basis that energy ministers are more likely to be
sympathetic. And so it proves: the Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs (Defra) has been reduced to the role of consultee on the “final
final” decision, which will now be taken elsewhere – with no judicial
review required.

Private Eye 2nd Feb 2024

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?issue=1616§ion_link=columnists

February 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | France, politics international, UK | 1 Comment

Blade hub idea for old n-plant site

A NEW wind turbine recycling site at Chapelcross could bring up to 80 jobs to the area

A cross party group of local MSPs recently wrote to the Scottish
Government to make the case for land at the former nuclear site becoming
the site of a planned specialist blade facility for the decommissioning,
and recycling, of old wind turbine blades.

Colin Smyth, Oliver Mundell,
Emma Harper and Finlay Carson all signed the letter which was sent to
Cabinet Secretary Neil Gray MSP. And Mr Smyth also raised the issue in a
Scottish Parliament debate last week on the green economy, when he
criticised the fact that although Dumfries and Galloway had more windfarms
per head of population than anywhere else in Scotland, few of the jobs from
the renewable industry were based in the region.

In September, Scotland’s
wind energy industry signed the Onshore Wind Sector Agreement with the
Scottish Government. It commits the industry, the Scottish Government and
its agencies to delivering a recycling hub in Scotland to support supply
chains to reuse and refurbish parts from windfarms. Speaking in the
debating chamber, Mr Smyth said: “Using the former nuclear power station
would be a visible example of a just transition in action, and it would fit
in with the Government’s commitment to the Borderlands inclusive growth
deal, with its pledge to make Chapelcross a focal point for clean energy.

DNG24 3rd Feb 2024