2025 February « nuclear-news

Nuclear weapons are ‘one-way road to annihilation’ warns Guterres

By Vibhu Mishra, 24 February 2025, https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/02/1160441

UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Monday warned that the risk of nuclear conflict is rising – as global security arrangements unravel and military spending soars – urging governments to push for total disarmament.

“The nuclear option is not an option at all,” he said, addressing the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

“It is a one-way road to annihilation. We need to avoid this dead-end at all costs.”

Arms race spreading to space

Mr. Guterres warned delegates of heightened global security concerns, noting that trust between nations is crumbling, international law is being undermined and multilateral treaties are under strain.

The so called “Doomsday Clock” – a metaphorical indicator of how close humanity is to destroying the world – moved one second closer to midnight last month, underscoring the growing peril.

“Others are expanding their inventories of nuclear weapons and materials. Some continue to rattle the nuclear sabre as a means of coercion. We see signs of new arms races including in outer space,” Mr. Guterres said.

“And the weaponization of Artificial Intelligence is moving forward at an alarming pace.”

Sign of hope

Despite the grim picture, the Secretary-General highlighted the Pact for the Future adopted by world leaders at the General Assembly last September, as a sign of hope.

It marked the first new international nuclear disarmament agreement in over a decade.

“Through the Pact, Member States also committed to revitalizing the role of the United Nations in disarmament,” he continued, calling also for holding accountable anyone who uses chemical or biological weapons.

Alongside, he urged delegates to prevent an arms race in outer space through new negotiations, calling for the UN’s role in disarmament and global security to be strengthened.

“Humanity is counting on us to get this right. Let us keep working to deliver the safe, secure and peaceful world that every person needs and deserves,” Mr. Guterres said.

The Conference on Disarmament

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) is the world’s sole multilateral forum for negotiating arms control and disarmament agreements.

Comprising 65 member states, including nuclear and militarily significant nations, the Conference has played a key role in shaping treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Its agenda includes nuclear disarmament, preventing an arms race in outer space, and addressing new weapons of mass destruction. Non-member States also attend its sessions, with 50 joining discussions in 2019, the highest in two decades.

February 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ontario’s outdated nuclear vision poses serious safety and financial risks

there’s nothing there. There’s really nothing. There are no safety systems to speak of.”

rabble,ca, by Ole Hendrickson, February 26, 2025

As Ontario seeks to build a small modular nuclear reactor, the standards and safety of Canada’s nuclear industry leave something to be desired.

In October 2022, the federal infrastructure bank committed $970 million towards Canada’s first small modular nuclear reactor. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has applied to construct a 20-story tall, half underground, BWRX-300 boiling water reactor at the Darlington nuclear site near Toronto.

Independent nuclear experts say the reactor poses significant risks. They brought them to the attention of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) during a five-day public hearing in January 2025.

On January 8, the first day of the hearing, Ontario Premier Doug Ford issued a press release about Fortress Am-Can, his plan for “economic prosperity in Canada and the United States.” Ford said “With our fleet of nuclear power plants and the first small modular nuclear reactors in the G7, Ontario is uniquely positioned to power the future of Fortress Am-Can.”

Independent experts say that nuclear plants are far costlier than a combination of renewables with energy storage systems and conservation measures. They create intractable waste problems. They are slow to deploy, delaying climate action.

Furthermore, the design of Ontario’s “first small modular nuclear reactor” raises major safety concerns.

The BWRX-300 is a slimmed-down, 300-megawatt version of an earlier 1600-megawatt boiling water reactor design from the American company GE-Hitachi. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed the design, but investors never materialized. General Electric (GE) also designed the boiling water reactors that melted down at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan.

At the CNSC hearing, Dr. Gordon Edwards, a leading independent nuclear expert with the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, disputed claims that the BWRX-300 design is “inherently safe.” He noted that the U.S. NRC has not approved the design. A single system, the Isolation Condenser System, would replace multiple safety systems of its larger predecessor. Edwards suggested that “the eagerness of OPG and CNSC staff to proceed with construction before the design is finalized is based on political, technological, and marketing considerations.”

Sarah Eaton, CSNC’s Director General for Advanced Reactor Technologies, responded for CNSC staff. She said staff use a “trust but verify approach.” CNSC Executive Vice President Ramzi Jammal confirmed that Canada differs from the U.S., where the NRC must certify a design before a license is issued.

Another CNSC staffer, Melanie Rickard, said “We’re talking about hundreds of hours, maybe thousands of hours, to be honest, so that we’re certain that this is going to be acceptable. And we are not certain. There is more work to be done.”

Intervenors also raised safety concerns about OPG’s plans for the BWRX-300 high-level spent fuel waste. Edwards said an above-ground spent fuel pool, unprotected by a containment structure, is vulnerable in a conflict. He added, “look at what’s happening in the Ukraine with the Zaporizhzhia plant with the conflict going on there.”

Dr. Sunil Nijhawan, who followed him, warned that an aircraft impact on a pool with a thousand spent fuel assemblies “can create a radiation disaster affecting Lake Ontario and about five million residences and businesses of southern Ontario.”

Nijhawan said “I’ve been in the industry for a long time. The first time I looked at a boiling water reactor design manual was 50 years ago, 1974, and I’ve kept in touch with development of all sorts of reactor designs… Right now what I see in this design, to me there’s nothing there. There’s really nothing. There are no safety systems to speak of.”

Nijhawan warned about a loss of “safety culture” throughout Canada’s nuclear industry…………………………….. https://rabble.ca/columnists/ontarios-outdated-nuclear-vision-poses-serious-safety-and-financial-risks/

February 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

As tensions rise, Canada to lean on U.S. for uranium enrichment

Matthew McClearn, February 24, 2025, Globe and Mail

Even as U.S. President Donald Trump talks of waging a campaign of “economic force” to persuade Canada to join a political union with the United States, Ontario Power Generation is preparing to construct an American reactor at its Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. The reactor’s uranium fuel would be enriched at a facility in New Mexico, a new vulnerability U.S. administrations could exploit.

Canada’s 17 operating reactors are of thehomegrown Candu design, which consume natural uranium. Canada possesses uranium in abundance and has long made its own fuel. But nearly all the reactors promoted for construction now require enriched uranium, which Canada can’t produce.

Proposals by Canadian utilities to build new reactors attracted American vendors, including GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy (which is designing the BWRX-300, planned for deployment at Darlington and in Saskatchewan), Westinghouse Electric Co. and ARC Clean Technology. Until the past few months, the risks of the U.S. government weaponizing nuclear fuel against allies for political purposes seemed distant. Now it’s just one more aspect of Canada-U.S. relations that Mr. Trump has disrupted.

“Developing a dependence on another country for our nuclear fuel has always been a concern and recent events have proven those concerns are justified,” Bob Walker, national director of the Canadian Nuclear Workers’Council, an umbrella organization of unions within Canada’s nuclear industry, said in a written response to questions.

We haven’t done our due diligence in terms of having other partners,” said Akira Tokuhiro, a professor in Ontario Tech University’s nuclear engineering department.

“Canada needs to really invest and make a concerted effort to find and establish the nuclear supply chain without the United States.”………………………………………………………………………………………

Nuclear fuel supply agreements are typically confidential, so it’s unclear what provisions GE-Hitachi and OPG have made to deal with supply disruptions. (Orano’s presence, though, seems to offer OPG a non-American enrichment supplier.) Neither company granted an interview for this article.

“The arrangements are probably as robust as they could be under normal circumstances, but the circumstances are no longer normal,” Mr. Walker said.

“This is a very fluid situation,” OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly wrote in a statement. “We are proactively evaluating potential impacts and will act as the situation arises.”

Tariffs could make nuclear fuel far more costly. One mitigating factor, however, is that fuel represents a relatively small portion of nuclear plant operating costs – typically under 20 per cent. That’s a striking contrast with power plants that burn oil or natural gas.

George Christidis, acting chief executive of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said that if Washington imposed a 25-per-cent tariff on Canadian uranium, that would harm the U.S. enough to force re-evaluation.

“There’s such an interconnection within our industry, on the uranium side right into the American economy and energy system, that in the end, it really would be something that may cause them a lot of distress.”

The U.S. government could also deny Canada access to enriched fuel, for example as part of a broader campaign to undermine Canadian sovereignty, or to reserve it exclusively for American utilities.

“A presidential executive order could force the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to disallow shipments to Canada,” Mr. Walker wrote.

“We don’t know how likely it is but there is a risk it could happen.”

Halting nuclear fuel shipments likely wouldn’t have the immediate impact of, say, ceasing deliveries to Canada on natural gas pipelines. Unlike gas-fired power plants, which require a steady stream of fuel, reactors are only refuelled periodically, affording time to adjust. And the high energy density of nuclear fuel facilitates stockpiling.

Mr. Christidis discounted the idea that the U.S. would disrupt Canada’s ability to acquire low-enriched uranium.

“I think quite strongly that there will be a path forward between the two countries to work together.”

Ms. Hanebach said Canada’s uranium supply would provide leverage in negotiating relationships with new enrichment partners. But the list is short.

“If the U.S. decided to pull enrichment capacity, it would be Russia, then it’s China,” she said. “And then there’s some in France, Netherlands, U.K. and Germany. That’s it.”

Experts told The Globe and Mail that there’s no aspect of the Candu’s fuel cycle that relies on American inputs, making it more resilient to disruption.

AtkinsRéalis Group Inc., which has exclusive licensing rights to Candu technology, regards that as a trump card against U.S. competitors – as it made clear in a survey it published in January. “Candu uses unenriched uranium,” noted the preamble to one question, while another said: “Westinghouse uses enriched uranium imported from countries like Russia.” Informed by such statements, 84 per cent of respondents said they preferred Candus over Westinghouse reactors.

“Candu emerges as the clear favourite,” AtkinsRéalis enthused.

But there’s a problem: The Candu is widely regarded as obsolete. The last one built in Canada was Darlington Unit 4, completed in 1993. Since then a number of new designs have been drawn up, but none were licensed or built. AtkinsRéalis now has a team of 250 employees designing a modernized version dubbed the Monark.

If Canada follows through on plans to build a fleet of light water reactors in Ontario, Saskatchewan and possibly elsewhere, it could elect to build its own enrichment capacity. Energy analyst Juzel Lloyd suggested doing precisely this, in a recent commentary for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

“Recent global events demand that the Canadian government re-evaluate its position on uranium enrichment,” she wrote.

“By initiating enrichment services, Canada can diversify the global nuclear supply chain, reduce reliance on Russian fuel and ensure the energy security of both established and emerging nuclear-powered states.”

The conventional wisdom, though, is that enrichment is so technically challenging and costly that only nuclear weapons states can justify it. (Japan is the noteworthy exception.) Prof. Tokuhiro said acquiring enrichment capacity would cost at least $100-billion and take at least 20 years.

“It’s more money than the Canadian government is willing to commit,” he said.

Ms. Hanebach observed that many legislative and regulatory changes would be required. Canada is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, for example. “We would need to work with the International Atomic Energy Agency on that, and then implement that in domestic legislation,” she said. Canada doesn’t have a regulatory framework for enrichment, either.

Internationally, enrichment capability is tightly controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to prevent weapons proliferation. Canada’s a member but is not permitted to enrich uranium.

Steve Aplin, of the Canadian Nuclear Workers’ Council, said Canada had sought U.S. support in 2006 before the Group to construct an enrichment facility here in Canada, but the U.S. refused outright.

“It was all very preliminary,” Mr. Aplin wrote. “The Americans refused because they want to control how many ‘enrichers’ there are in the world.”

Furthermore, he said that had the U.S. acquiesced, Russia, which is also a member, would not.

“Russia, like America, likes the fact they possess enrichment capacity and others don’t.” subscription:https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-with-us-tensions-rising-canada-lacks-its-own-uranium-enrichment/

February 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uranium | Leave a comment

Starmer drags Britain deeper into war drive

February 25, 2025, Sophie Bolt, CND General Secretary,
https://cnduk.org/starmer-drags-britain-deeper-into-war-drive/?link_id=2&can_id=0a448bf4278898648e02a8f6dea4650f&source=email-starmer-drags-britain-deeper-into-war-drive&email_referrer=email_2633766&email_subject=starmer-drags-britain-deeper-into-war-drive

Starmer’s announcement to increase military spending to 2.5% by 2027 – an additional £13.4 billion annually – at the expense of overseas aid, reflects a Trump-style of international priorities: driving war and militarism whilst abandoning international obligations to halt global hunger and climate devastation. It represents a much more dangerous and damaging role for Britain in the world.

The spending announcement has clearly been rapidly organised ahead of Starmer’s meeting with Trump on Thursday. Nailing his colours very firmly to the Trump mast, Starmer reasserted Britain’s special relationship with the US, and pledged to increase military spending to 3% of GDP after the next election.

These increases are to fund a reckless war drive that risks plunging Europe into decades-long confrontation with Russia, whilst ratcheting up nuclear tensions globally.

Presenting Britain as the European leadership in NATO, Starmer reiterated his so-called peace-keeping operation in a post-settlement Ukraine. In it, 30,000 European troops would be deployed to Ukraine, underwritten by US military might should the ceasefire collapse. The plan has failed to win unity across Europe.

Meanwhile Friedrich Merz, the newly elected Germany Chancellor, has called for France and Britain to share their nuclear weapons to ‘defend’ Europe against Russia. This has also renewed the debate about the use of tactical or ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons – and whether Britain should develop them on behalf of Europe.

These reckless and terrifying debates around greater nuclear armament for Europe fail to note that Trump has made no statement that US nuclear weapons will be withdrawn from Europe. Or that new ‘battlefield’ nuclear bombs won’t be deployed in Britain. They also fail to acknowledge that, as Britain is totally dependent on the US for its nuclear weapons system, Starmer would have to get permission from Trump if he were to offer them to Europe.

But, of course, whether US, French or British, nuclear weapons deployed in Europe are a disaster. Far from offering protection, the weapons are a constant threat – from the risk of nuclear accidents to nuclear confrontation.

This obscene spending spree on weapons of war won’t bring peace to Ukraine. On the contrary, the £205bn that Europe has pledged to Ukraine since 2022 has contributed to prolonging this terrible conflict, sustaining the huge death toll and pushing the region to the brink of nuclear war. And the impact of the conflict has driven the worsening economic crisis in Britain, across Europe and globally. And if Trump gets his way, the majority of Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth will be siphoned off to the US.

Whilst it is presented as defending Ukraine, this NATO war drive is global. We know that Trump’s ‘America First’ policies are still about maintaining US dominance over the rest of the world. From calls to seize Greenland, Canada and Panama, to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza, Trump has no respect for sovereignty, human rights and international law. His plans to expand the US Missile Defence System, or ‘the Iron Dome for America’, would enable the Trump administration to use its nuclear weapons without fear of a retaliatory strike. British bases already play a central role in this ‘Iron Dome for America’, making us a target in any global confrontation, yet offering no protection.

This is a very chilling prospect.

Instead of vying for Trump’s approval over which NATO state can increase its military spending highest, Britain and Europe should instead be using this opportunity to reshape the region’s security approach, towards one that is genuinely sustainable and secure. This means Britain ending its military and nuclear alliance with the US. A first step in this would be to scrap the replacement of Britain’s nuclear weapons system. With the government’s own watchdog concluding that the replacement is ‘unachievable’, Rachel Reeves should cut her losses and direct the hundreds of billions into rebuilding crumbling public services and investing in sustainable energy sources.

February 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK construction and engineering firm Costain has secured a multi-millionpound contract to support the construction of the Sizewell C nuclear powerplant

Costain said under the ten-year framework agreement, the company
will provide support in areas such as delivery integration, health and
safety and quality control. French state-owned energy firm EDF is
developing the 3.2 GW nuclear power station, which could provide up to 7%
of UK energy needs over its 60-year lifetime.

The UK government holds a
76.1% stake in Sizewell C, with EDF holding the remaining 23.9%. Costain
defence and nuclear energy sector director Bob Anstey said the Sizewell C
project is a “vital part of creating a sustainable future”. The
Sizewell C project has attracted significant criticism amid concerns over
its ballooning costs. Earlier this year, campaign group Together Against
Sizewell C (TASC) wrote to the National Audit Office calling for a review
of the government’s value assessment for the controversial nuclear power
station.

The UK Labour government has committed to delivering Sizewell C,
as well as the delayed Hinkley Point C, alongside small modular reactors.
But with Sizewell C investors including Centrica prepared to “walk
away” from investing in the project, there are concerns costs could rise
to more than £40bn.

Energy Voice 25th Feb 2025, https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/nuclear/567502/costain-secures-multi-million-pound-sizewell-c-contract/

February 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

US correct to vote against UN resolution solely condemning Russia for Ukraine war

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 26 Feb 25

Less than half of the UN’s 193 member states voted for the Ukrainian resolution in the General Assembly solely condemning Russia for invading Ukraine on the third anniversary of the war.

The vote on the non-binding resolution was 93 to 18 with 65 members abstaining.

In an astonishing reversal of previous US policy at the UN on Ukraine, the US joined Russia and 16 other states in opposing the resolution.

Why?

US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea argued that the Ukrainian resolution ignored that the war actually started 11 years earlier with the Russian Ukraine war that ignited after the 2014 coup that toppled democratically elected Ukraine president Victor Yanukovych.

Shea didn’t mention that the US was heavily involved in supporting the coup in order to prevent Ukraine from partnering economically with Russia. Nor did she mention that after the coup the US heavily armed Ukraine to complete the destruction of the Ukrainian separatist movement seeking freedom from Kyiv’s policy of destroying Ukrainian Russian culture in the Donbas. Shea also omitted that 14 years of US efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO crossed a red line for Russia that would inevitably provoke a Russian invasion.

But all of these critical omissions were implicit in the Trump administration’s refusal to continue the Biden administration’s fantasy that President Putin woke up one day in February, 2022 and decided to attack Ukraine unproved.

This was a welcome dose of reality sorely missing from the Biden administration for all two years, eleven months of their proxy war to weaken Russia using Ukrainian proxies to do all the dying.

President Trump is telling the world that this war must end with a settlement based on reality. Ukraine will not join NATO. Ukraine will not get back the oblasts containing Russian cultured Ukrainians seeking relief from endless destruction by their own government. Ukraine will refrain from being a US/NATO Trojan Horse to keep Russia out of the Western Europe political economy. Most importantly, the US and Russia can normalize diplomatic relations and end three years of risking nuclear annihilation from America’s zero sum game approach to the war.

Based on the vote of Ukraine’s one sided resolution putting all the blame on Russia, a majority of UN members agree with the Trump path to peace.

February 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Russia, Ukraine, USA | 1 Comment

Iran on ‘high alert’ amid fears of attack on nuclear sites

Officials say measures are in response to growing concerns of potential joint military action by Israel and US

Akhtar Makoii

Iran has put its defence systems around its nuclear sites on high alert amid fears of an attack by Israel and the US, The Telegraph has learnt…

According to two high-level government sources, the Islamic Republic has
also been bolstering defences around key nuclear and missile sites, which
include the deployment of additional air defence system launchers.
Officials say the measures are in response to growing concerns of potential
joint military action by Israel and the United States.

Telegraph 25th Feb 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/25/iran-missile-defences-high-alert-attack-fears-us-israel/

February 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The physical hazards of nuclear energy

Mark Diesendorf: The debate about the economics of nuclear energy versus
renewable energy has distracted politicians, the media and members of the
public from the physical hazards of nuclear energy. The three principal
hazards are its contribution to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the
risk of nuclear accidents, and the impossible task of managing nuclear
wastes for 100,000 years. This article offers a concise review, drawing
attention to some issues that are not widely known, including a fourth
hazard, radiation exposure of the unborn child. I write wearing the hat of
a physicist.

John Menadue’s Public Policy Journal 24th Feb 2025 https://johnmenadue.com/the-physical-hazards-of-nuclear-energy/

February 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety | Leave a comment

What Trump got right about nuclear weapons—and how to step back from the brink

By Lucas Ruiz, Geoff Wilson | February 24, 2025, https://thebulletin.org/2025/02/what-trump-got-right-about-nuclear-weapons-and-how-to-step-back-from-the-brink/

President Donald Trump’s recent remarks about nuclear weapons are 100-percent correct.

Speaking to a room of reporters in the White House on February 13, President Trump signaled his interest in restarting arms control negotiations with Russia and China. “There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many,” Trump said. “You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”

He continued, “We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

The United States is already spending $75 billion annually—the equivalent of two Manhattan Projects every year—on new nuclear weapons until at least 2032. In total, the country is set to spend over $1.7 trillion on nuclear modernization over 30 years—which is about the same amount as all student loan debt in the United States.

But what will the country have to show for it?

Counterproductive upgrades. The United States already spends more on national security than the next nine nations combined, and China and Russia have also started expanding and modernizing their arsenals, respectively. But the US arsenal is already more than capable of retaliating against a simultaneous nuclear strike by both countries—which would not change even in a scenario in which China reached numerical nuclear parity with the United States and Russia. Instead, as President Trump suggests, US political leaders must consider how engaging in a massive, new nuclear build-up will waste limited taxpayer dollars and undermine national security by diverting the federal budget from more useful national investments like pursuing infrastructure and electrical grid resiliency.

The current US nuclear modernization program attempts to replace every leg of the US strategic triad—that is, the land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic bombers, and ballistic missile submarines—all at once. This wildly ambitious program is already massively over budget and years behind schedule. It has also forced the United States to extend the service lives of current systems while waiting for the new systems to come online—something the US military claimed to be infeasible when the process started. The advanced age of the previous generation of nuclear delivery vehicles was a major justification for modernization in the first place.

More fundamentally, the current modernization push is fueled by a pathology of nuclear superiority brinkmanship, which is accelerating a headlong rush into a new nuclear arms race and increasing the odds of a confrontation between nuclear powers. If the United States continues down this path, it will not only be a waste of taxpayer dollars but also weaken strategic stability and increase the risk of nuclear war. The world was lucky to have escaped what President John F. Kennedy called the “nuclear sword of Damocles”—and the United States should be in no hurry to test that fate again.

Stepping toward the brink—and back. While President Trump’s remarks offer hope for a more reasonable nuclear path, his administration is also espousing “peace through strength”—Ronald Reagan’s mantra—as one of the foundations of its foreign policy. The administration’s Republican allies in Congress—including notably Sen. Roger Wicker, a Republican of Mississippi who now chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee—have adopted this framing and proposed doubling down on the arms race by adding $200 billion to an already historically high US defense budget.

Other conservatives are pushing Trump to adopt Reagan’s playbook for US-Soviet relations by demonstrating US supremacy internationally, which includes accelerating the nuclear arms race. Most concerning, some allege winning this arms race necessitates being prepared to resume US explosive nuclear testing. And some within the military establishment have called for the reintroduction of tactical nuclear weapons into the US arsenal despite being hugely destabilizing.

But these hawkish policies are only the first part of Reagan’s nuclear weapons chapter.

In 1982, after boosting defense spending by 35 percent, Reagan suddenly reversed course and famously declared in a radio address that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” His reversal on nuclear weapons would be confirmed after witnessing the infamous Pentagon war game Proud Prophet, viewing the cataclysmic effects of nuclear war in the movie “The Day After,” and nearly triggering a catastrophic war with the Soviets. Reagan’s idiom became the bedrock of efforts to avoid mutual destruction through nuclear war, which has been repeated by many officials in the four decades since, including just five years ago at the start of the Biden administration.

In hindsight, Trump can skip to the productive portion of Reagan’s strategy. His intuition is already pointing him in this direction. The president should not be listening to those around him who would like to see the United States embrace a nuclear arms race by chasing after the illusion of strategic superiority and expanding the nuclear arsenal—which Trump already said made no sense. Instead, President Trump should pursue a course of hard-nosed diplomacy like Reagan did to secure the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which eliminated US and Soviet intermediate- and shorter-range missiles in 1985.

The Trump administration could renew Reagan’s crowning achievement by negotiating with Russia and China to limit the growing numbers of new nuclear weapons in the world today. The president has the opportunity to push the United States and other nuclear-weapon states to abide by their disarmament promises regarding nuclear weapons. Should he succeed, Trump could even win a Nobel Peace Prize—becoming just the fifth US president to do so.

President Trump, the United States, and the world would be well served by taking steps to decrease the threats posed by the new nuclear arms race. One question remains: Does he have the courage to stick to his convictions to shut out those around him who would prefer to gamble on Armageddon?

February 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

If China can’t scale nuclear, Australia’s got Buckley’s

Dutton’s proposal has seven nuclear power plants, including five large-scale reactors and two SMRs. This isn’t critical mass for a nuclear program. As of February 2025, the United States operates 94 nuclear reactors, France has 57, and South Korea maintains 26 reactors. Those are sufficient numbers of GW-scale reactors to achieve program economies of scale. Australia’s peak electricity demand of 38.6 GW isn’t sufficient to provide an opportunity for sufficient numbers of reactors of a single design to be built.

Michael Barnard, Feb 25, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/if-china-cant-scale-nuclear-australias-got-buckleys/

The platypus of energy in Australia has reared its duckbill and stamped its webbed feet again in recent years.

A fractious group of bedfellows is advocating for nuclear generation, primarily driven by the Liberal-National Coalition under Peter Dutton, who has proposed repurposing decommissioned coal-fired stations for nuclear power, with the remarkable claim that reactors could be operational between 2035 and 2037.

Other political supporters include the Libertarian Party and One Nation. Unsurprising advocacy organisations such as the Australian Nuclear Association, Nuclear for Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia, and the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy are calling for legislative changes to allow nuclear development, citing its reliability and low emissions.

Notable figures like opposition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien, who has chaired parliamentary inquiries into nuclear energy, and Indigenous leader Warren Mundine, who sees nuclear as an economic and climate solution, have also voiced strong support.

But nuclear energy, like the platypus, is an oddly shaped beast, and needs a very specific hole to fit into the energy jigsaw puzzle.

Successful nuclear programs share several key conditions, drawn from historical examples in the United States, France, South Korea, and the UK. These countries achieved large-scale nuclear deployment first by making it a top-priority national goal, tied to military strategy or energy security.

Bipartisan support ensured long-term stability, while military involvement helped enforce cost discipline and continuity over decades. Australia clearly doesn’t have bipartisan support for nuclear energy.

Previous countries found political consensus in the face of serious geopolitical threats from nuclear armed enemies such as the Soviet Union and North Korea. Australia isn’t threatened by invasion or nuclear war by any country, and the major political parties are clearly on opposite sides of the fence on the subject.

Teal MPs, supported by Climate 200 and a major new force, are in general not supportive of nuclear energy either.

Australia’s federal laws prohibit nuclear power development through the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), which explicitly bans the approval of nuclear power plants.

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act) restricts certain nuclear activities, reinforcing the ban. Both laws would have to be repealed or substantially altered, requiring draft legislation to start with. No draft legislation has been in evidence from the Liberal-National Coalition, which appears par for the course for a campaign plank which is very light on details.

If the Liberal-National Coalition were to regain power, they would first have to draft a bill, and then shepherd it through the extensive legislative process, something that with contentious bills can take up to two years. That’s just the beginning.

Australia’s status as a signatory to international nuclear non-proliferation treaties adds a layer of complexity to any move toward nuclear power. Compliance with agreements such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and safeguards enforced by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would require strict oversight of uranium handling, enrichment, and waste disposal.

Any shift to nuclear energy could trigger lengthy negotiations with global regulatory bodies to ensure Australia remains within its non-proliferation commitments, delaying and complicating the development of a civilian nuclear program.

The duration for individual countries to negotiate and implement these protocols has ranged from a few months to several years, influenced by national legislative processes and political considerations.

Strong central control is another common factor in successful nuclear programs. National governments directly managed nuclear projects, maintaining tight oversight of construction schedules and decision-making. This approach prevented fragmentation and ensured that experienced leadership remained in place throughout the deployment.

In Australia, power systems are largely under state control, meaning any attempt to build nuclear power plants would require approval from individual state governments. While the federal government sets national energy policies and regulates nuclear safety, states have the authority over planning and construction approvals.

Several states, including Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, and South Australia, have explicit bans on nuclear power, adding another layer of legislative hurdles. Even if the federal ban were lifted, nuclear development would still depend on state cooperation, making a nationwide rollout politically and legally complex.

Building a skilled workforce was essential to scaling nuclear generation. Successful programs invested in national education and certification systems, training engineers, construction workers, and technicians specifically for nuclear projects. Strict security measures were also necessary to vet personnel and prevent risks.

That’s challenging for Australia. The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) was abolished on July 1, 2005, with all its functions transferred to the Department of Education, Science and Training. This move aimed to centralize vocational education and training (VET) oversight at the federal level, streamlining operations and reducing administrative complexities associated with the previous federal-state arrangements.

Despite this degree of centralisation, the administration and delivery of VET programs remain primarily under state and territory control, with public technical and further education institutes and private providers delivering courses under regional oversight.

While the coordination and policy aspects of ANTA’s functions persist at the national level, the execution and management of training programs continue to be managed by individual states and territories.

That’s not a good basis for a nationally run and managed nuclear workforce education, certification and security clearance program that would need to persist for thirty to forty years. A nuclear ANTA would have to be established, taking time in and of itself, and then it would take time to attract and create a critical mass of skilled nuclear engineering, construction, operation and security human resources.

Speaking of security, Australia’s nuclear ambitions come with an often overlooked cost: an immense, multilayered security burden that taxpayers will likely shoulder.

In the US, nuclear power requires an extensive web of international, national, state, and local security measures, yet much of this expense is not covered by reactor operators.

The US government funds $1.1 billion annually in international nuclear security, including protecting supply chains and waste management through agencies like the IAEA, the Department of Defense, and the CIA. These costs translate to $8 million per reactor per year, with a full lifecycle cost of $1.2 billion per reactor—expenses that remain largely hidden from public scrutiny.

Domestically, the security footprint is even larger. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, Homeland Security, and law enforcement agencies provide a $26 million per reactor per year security umbrella, ensuring compliance, protecting fuel transport, and defending against threats.

On-site security measures – including armed patrols, cyber protection, and emergency response teams – add another $18 million annually per reactor. In total, US taxpayers effectively subsidise $34 million per reactor per year, or $4 billion over a nuclear site’s lifespan, a cost that is rarely included in nuclear energy debates.

For Australia, these figures should serve as a stark warning. If nuclear reactors are built, the country will need to establish entirely new layers of security infrastructure, from federal oversight and emergency response teams to military-style site defenses.

The financial burden won’t fall on private operators alone – it will land squarely on the Australian taxpayer. As policymakers debate nuclear’s role in the country’s energy future, they must ask: are Australians ready to take on a security commitment of this scale?

A single, GW-scale, standardised reactor design was crucial to keeping costs under control. Countries that succeeded in nuclear deployment avoided excessive customization and focused on repeating a proven design, allowing for efficiency gains and predictable outcomes.

At present, there are various proposed reactor designs under consideration. Dutton’s proposal includes evaluating various reactor technologies, with a focus on South Korea’s APR1000 and APR1400 pressurized water reactors.

O’Brien has led a delegation to South Korea to study its nuclear power industry and assess the suitability of these reactor models for Australia.

It’s worth noting that while South Korea was successful in scaling nuclear generation, it did so with corruption that included substandard parts in reactors that led to a political scandal that resulted in the jailing of politicians and energy company executives.

Small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) have been proposed as part of the mix. They aren’t GW-scale and they don’t actually exist. As the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) accurately pointed out in mid-2024, SMR technology remains in developmental stages globally, with no operational units in OECD countries.

The ATSE suggests that a mature market for SMRs may not emerge until the late 2040s, while I think it’s unlikely to emerge at all. Small reactors were tried in the 1960s and 1970s and were too expensive, leading to reactors being scaled up to around the GW scale in successful programs. There is nothing to indicate that anything has changed since then that will make SMRs successful and inexpensive the second time around.

Scale and speed mattered. Effective programs built between 24 and 100 reactors of very similar designs within a 20-to-40-year timeframe, ensuring that expertise remained within the workforce. Spreading projects over longer periods led to skill erosion and inefficiencies.

Dutton’s proposal has seven nuclear power plants, including five large-scale reactors and two SMRs. This isn’t critical mass for a nuclear program. As of February 2025, the United States operates 94 nuclear reactors, France has 57, and South Korea maintains 26 reactors. Those are sufficient numbers of GW-scale reactors to achieve program economies of scale. Australia’s peak electricity demand of 38.6 GW isn’t sufficient to provide an opportunity for sufficient numbers of reactors of a single design to be built.

Finally, strict adherence to design was non-negotiable. Countries that allowed constant innovation or design changes saw costs balloon and timelines slip. The lesson from history is clear: nuclear success depends on disciplined execution, a committed national strategy, and a workforce dedicated to repeating a single proven approach.

Australia’s strong engineering culture, known for innovation and adaptation, could pose challenges to a strictly controlled nuclear deployment program. Unlike industries where iterative improvements drive progress, nuclear power requires rigid standardization to control costs, ensure safety, and meet regulatory demands.

Australia’s history of engineering-led modifications – seen in mining, renewables, and infrastructure – could lead to pressures for design changes mid-project, a factor that has contributed to cost overruns and delays in nuclear projects overseas.

While flexibility has been a strength in other sectors, in nuclear energy, deviation from a single, proven reactor design undermines efficiency and drives up costs, making strict oversight and discipline crucial to success.

February 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, technology | Leave a comment

EDF appears to consider reduced final stake in Sizewell C nuclear to as low as 10%

New Civil Engineer, 24 Feb, 2025 By Tom Pashby

French state-owned energy giant EDF which is the sole operator of nuclear power plants in the UK has said it will consider becoming a 10-19.99% owner of Sizewell C, having previously committed up to 20%.

EDF previously confirmed in its 2024 half year results that Sizewell C is owned 76.1% by the UK Government and 23.9% by EDF.

Despite the final investment decision (FID) still not having been made, approximately £5.5bn of taxpayer money has been committed to the scheme, and contractors have been awarded £2.5bn of works which are underway ahead of main construction.

Speculation about the ownership of Sizewell C abounds because of the secrecy around the process, the potential for much of the £40bn investment to be stumped up by the taxpayer, and Centrica’s recent comments which weakened confidence in the scheme.

Centrica CEO Chris O’Shea said the energy company’s stake in Sizewell C could be “between 1% or 2% and 50%”.

“I’m not going to commit Centrica money for something that won’t give us the returns we need.”

EDF previously said it would own maximum 20% stake

In a press release from EDF on 20 December 2022, the company said: “EDF will only retain a minority stake of a maximum of 20% at final investment decision”.

Since the 20% figure was announced, French public spending watchdog Cour des comptes said EDF should scale back involvement in UK nuclear projects.

The auditor said “a final investment decision on [Sizewell C] should not be approved until a significant reduction in EDF’s financial exposure to the Hinkley Point project has been achieved.

………………….Ownership stake scaled back to 10-19.99%

EDF’s 2024 Annual results document laid out its contribution to the power plant which is “subject to some conditions, including … a share in ownership of the project of 10 to 19.99%, including a cap on financial exposure in value.”

It also requires “A return on capital expected by EDF as an investor in line with market return for this type of assets, risk allocation profile and its investment policy.”

It is understood that the reason for selecting 19.99% rather than 20% is because a company buying 20% would have to set up a subsidiary entity to take the ownership.

Another aspect of any ownership stake is a requirement to take on debt.

A UBS spokesperson told NCE: “The project would have something like £4bn of debt for every £2bn equity.”

Anti-Sizewell C groups say EDF appears to be attempting to ‘wriggle out’ of ownership

Stop Sizewell C executive director Alison Downes said: “The mention of this lower percentage stake (10%) in EDF’s results is significant.

“EDF’s leadership is clearly strapped for cash and doesn’t seem to buy its own rhetoric that replication could result in Sizewell C being built on time, significantly cheaper than Hinkley C – and neither do we.

“A reduction in EDF’s stake would leave the UK government with an even bigger costly void to fill.”

Downes also pointed out that regardless of EDF’s ownership status, the company would still likely get a construction contract since no other company has the relevant expertise.

Together Against Sizewell C spokesperson Chris Wilson said it was no surprise that “EDF hope to wriggle out of their financial commitment to the Sizewell project by suggesting a cap on their exposure and a reduction in their investment down to 10%”.

Wilson said this was not surprising given that EDF is “struggling to find investors to plug the £8bn- £13bn gap in the funding they need to finish the Hinkley Point C (HPC) build and the French state auditor’s advice to not take a final investment decision in Sizewell C until their exposure at HPC is reduced.”

“As the UK govt scrabble around for the likely £40 billion for the Sizewell C development, it’s hardly a good advert to potential investors that we now have EDF, the original promoter, hoping to reduce their exposure to as low as 10%”, Wilson said…………………………………………….. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/edf-appears-to-consider-reduced-final-stake-in-sizewell-c-to-as-low-as-10-24-02-2025/

February 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, France, UK | Leave a comment

Archbishop Gallagher: Nuclear weapons pose existential threat

As Pope Francis strongly affirms, Archbishop Gallagher insisted, it is necessary “to overcome the logic of confrontation and embrace instead the logic of encounter.”

The Vatican’s Secretary for Relations with States, Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, expresses the Holy See’s “deep concern” over the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons, in his remarks to the High-Level Segment of the UN’s 2025 Session of the Conference on Disarmament.

By Deborah Castellano Lubov, https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-02/gallagher-addresses-2025-session-of-conference-on-disarmament.html

“Immense military expenditures, that often go far beyond what is necessary to ensure legitimate defense, foment the vicious circle of an exhausting arms race that diverts vital resources away from poverty eradication, justice, education, and healthcare.”

Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, the Vatican’s Secretary for Relations with States and International Organizations, stressed this on Wednesday in a statement to the UN’s High-Level Segment of the 2025 Session of the Conference on Disarmament taking place in Geneva on February 24-28.

Offering the participants the Pope’s cordial greetings, he said, “Today we stand at a turning point.”

“Together, as a family of nations,” he encouraged, “we can take just and courageous actions for a general, balanced, and complete disarmamentunder effective international control.”

Otherwise, he warned, the alternative “is the perpetuation of conflicts, violence, increasing inequalities, and environmental degradation, from which ultimately benefits no one but the arms lobby.”

‘Hostage to a stalemate’

Archbishop Gallagher said the Conference on Disarmament “has been held hostage to a stalemate” that has continued year after year “without the adoption of a proper negotiating mandate.”

The raison d’être of this body, he recalled, is to negotiate multilateral disarmament instruments and to deliver concrete results.

In this regard, he said, it must be recalled that all peoples of the world have a vital interest in the success of the disarmament negotiations.

Duty and right to participate in negotiations

“Consequently,” he underscored, “all States have the duty—as well as the right—to contribute and to participate in such negotiations.”

“Massive and competitive arms accumulation,” Archbishop Gallagher observed, “seems to contradict the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, in which States resolve “to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace.”

The Vatican’s Secretary for Relations with States recalled Pope Francis’ recent appeal to “reduce military expenditures on weapons” and to “use at least a fixed percentage of the money earmarked for armaments to establish a global Fund to eradicate hunger and facilitate in the poorer countries educational activities aimed at promoting sustainable development and combating climate change.”

Before it is too late

As Pope Francis strongly affirms, Archbishop Gallagher insisted, it is necessary “to overcome the logic of confrontation and embrace instead the logic of encounter.”

Therefore, he said, the Holy See encourages the conference to adopt a renewed sense of urgency and commitment to reach concrete and lasting agreements for the sake of the common good, “before it may be too late.”

Archbishop Gallagher said the Holy See remains “deeply concerned” about the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons and their proliferation.

“Peace and international stability,” he observed, “are incompatible with attempts to build upon the fear of mutual destruction or the threat of total annihilation.”

Serious negotations required

He expressed concern over the “continuous expansion and modernization of nuclear arsenals, accompanied by escalating rhetoric and threats concerning their deployment.” The means to promote peace and stability today, he insisted, should not be of those that would reignite or fuel the dangerous pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“Moreover,” he appealed, “it is urgent that nuclear weapons states engage in serious negotiations to reduce and eventually eliminate their stockpiles in accordance with their obligations under Art. VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.”

Concerns for weaponization of artificial intelligence

He also discussed the weaponization of Artificial Intelligence (AI), observing “the ability to conduct military operations through remote control systems has led to a lessened perception of the devastation caused by those weapon systems and the burden of responsibility for their use, resulting in an even more cold and detached approach to the immense tragedy of war.”

In particular, Archbishop Gallagher reminded the participants that Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), which are capable of identifying and striking targets without direct human intervention and control, “are a cause for grave ethical concern’ because they lack the ‘unique human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making.”

February 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Religion and ethics | Leave a comment

We can’t afford Doug Ford’s nuclear fantasy

When it comes to energy, any economic strategy for Ontario has to focus on controlling energy costs and improving energy productivity, not energy production.

Feb. 26, 2025, By Mark Winfield. Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental and urban change at York University, co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative, and co-editor of Sustainable Energy Transitions in Canada (UBC Press 2023). https://www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/we-cant-afford-doug-ford-s-nuclear-fantasy/article_818e4f2d-0f80-50bf-a4c4-7abaf277ebb1.html

Doug Ford’s proposal to bury Highway 401 lanes from Brampton or Mississauga in the west to Scarborough or Markham in the east, with an estimated price tag of at least $100 billion, has been described as being a “fantasy that would bankrupt” the province.

Although the 401 proposal has drawn the most attention among the Ford government’s increasingly grandiose infrastructure proposals, it actually isn’t the largest.

That status goes to the government’s plans to dramatically expand the province’s now aging fleet of nuclear reactors. A 10,000-megawatt (MW) facility proposed just before the election call for Wesleyville, Ont., between Coburg and Kingston, could break the $200-billion mark in capital costs alone.

That estimate is based on the actual costs of the most recently completed nuclear construction project in North American, the Vogtle plant in Georgia. That facility, completed last summer, came in at $50 billion (Canadian) for 2,200 MW capacity. A simple extrapolation of those costs to the Wesleyville project would give a figure of over $200 billion.

But there is even more to the Ford government’s nuclear plan.

A proposed new 4,800-MW facility at the Bruce nuclear site, would come in around $100 billion on the same basis. New estimates by the U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority on the costs of the type of the four 300-MW reactors proposed for the Darlington site suggests costs in the range of $25 billion.

To this has to be added the costs of the refurbishments of the existing reactors at Bruce, Darlington and potentially, the Pickering B site, with potential costs of between $35 billion and $50 billion.

For context, the scale of Ontario’s nuclear proposals, relative to provincial GDP, would be comparable to that of the Muskrat Falls hydro project in Labrador. That project really did push the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to the brink of bankruptcy, save for a massive federal bailout.

At least the Muskrat Falls project was subject to external economic and environmental reviews. Unfortunately, the warnings flowing from those reviews about the project’s risks were ignored. In contrast, none of Ontario’s proposals have been subject to any form of meaningful external review in terms of their economic, technological or environmental rationality.

The Ford government’s nuclear heavy strategy appears to be premised on an assumption that a massive nuclear expansion program will turn Ontario into an electricity production and export “superpower.”

The fundamental problem with strategy is that Ontario has no comparative advantage in electricity production.

Comparative advantage in energy tends to be a product of accidents of geography. Ontario was the beneficiary of such an accident through the first half of the 20th century, where hydro-electricity, principally from Niagara Falls, provided the foundation of the industrial base that was built through the Golden Horseshoe around the western end of Lake Ontario, from Niagara to Oshawa.

But that advantage was lost from the early 1960s onward when the province ceased to be a hydro-dominated system, turning first to the construction of coal-fired plants, and then a massive nuclear construction program from the 1960s to the 1990s.

Ontario turned out to be no better at building and operating these types of plants than anyone else in North America.

The province therefore lost its comparative advantage in electricity production. The recent experience with attempts at constructing new nuclear facilities in the U.S. and Europe, like the Vogtle project, suggest such advantage cannot be restored through a nuclear expansion program. Renewable energy sources, combined with energy storage offer much more cost-effective, lower-impact and lower-risk options.

Instead, when it comes to energy, any economic strategy for Ontario has to focus on controlling energy costs and improving energy productivity, not energy production. The province is already taking $7.3 billion a year from general revenues, funds that otherwise would be spent, for example, on schools and hospitals, to artificially lower hydro costs for industrial and residential consumers.

The Ford government has given no indication of what its nuclear expansion program will cost or how it will be financed. Past experience tells us it will be Ontario electricity ratepayers and taxpayers who are likely to be ultimately stuck with the bills.

Ontario needs to engage in a serious debate about the future of its energy systems. But it needs to look to pathways to decarbonize the province without risking bankrupting it in the process.

February 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Election candidates should face nuclear waste questions: group

THE CHRONICLE-JOURNAL, Feb 25, 2025, https://www.chroniclejournal.com/news/local/election-candidates-should-face-nuclear-waste-questions-group/article_e5e12318-f322-11ef-aede-0bca88dc7589.htm

With just two days to go before the provincial election, two citizen watchdog groups are urging voters to grill candidates over where they stand regarding alternatives to nuclear power, and what to do with the nuclear waste that exists now.

In particular, the We The Nuclear Free North and Northwatch groups want candidates to commit to giving first responders notice before nuclear waste is transported through areas in which they provide emergency services.

The groups maintain that question is crucial in the Thunder Bay district, since the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is proposing to build an underground storage site for spent nuclear fuel rods at a remote location between Ignace and Dryden.

The two groups have set up an online tool that can be used to put questions to provincial-election candidates about the project and request a response. The link to the tool is: tinyurl.com/2x9uct7a.

Radioactive fuel rods are to be shipped to the storage site by truck or rail in specialized containers designed to withstand fiery crashes, hard impacts and immersion in water, according to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization.

The storage site is expected to take 20 years to build once all approvals have been obtained.

February 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

SCOTUS goes nuclear: Justices’ decision could seal spent fuel storage options for decades.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will not be hearing technical, economic, or social arguments in this case; the matters of interest are purely legal. These legal interpretations, however, will have profound implications for how commercial spent nuclear fuel is handled until plans for permanent repositories are developed.

Bulleting of Atomic Scientists, By Riley Fisher, Muhammad Abdussami, Aditi Verma | February 20, 2025

US nuclear waste policy is at a critical turning point. Mired in decades of disappointments and shortcomings, the monkey on nuclear power’s back is just weeks away from being freed—or being strapped in place. The issue at hand: whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had the legal authority to grant a permit for the construction and operation of a privately-owned temporary spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Texas.

On March 5, 2025, representatives from the NRC and the state of Texas will convene in Washington, D.C., to argue this issue in front of the United States Supreme Court. The NRC v. Texas case will end a battle of nearly three and a half years over the legality of privately-owned interim nuclear waste storage in the United States. However, while the Supreme Court’s ruling will settle the battle, it will resolve only one aspect of the US nuclear waste management problem.

A ruling favoring the NRC would help the nuclear waste problem in the short term but might harm the long-term management situation, allowing the consolidation of spent nuclear fuel at interim storage facilities—a state of affairs that could place new constraints on the permanent solution of geological disposal. Conversely, a ruling against the NRC would hurt the waste problem short-term by halting interim storage plans—including those of Interim Storage Partners in Texas and Holtec International in New Mexico—but it would leave future permanent storage options unconstrained.

Temporary storage. For more than 40 years, temporary, consolidated nuclear waste storage has been a hot-button issue. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 tasked the president and the Energy Department with identifying, constructing, and operating nuclear waste storage facilities in underground repositories. With this act, Congress intended to create a program that permanently stowed away the hazardous waste produced by nuclear power operations.

The original provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act gave the president four years to start the construction of a geologic repository site following congressional approval. During this process, nuclear power plants were still operating and producing spent nuclear fuel, and Congress clarified that plant operators were primarily responsible for waste management while the executive branch did their repository siting and construction work. Under exceptional circumstances, however, the federal government was allowed to provide a limited amount of “interim” storage before the waste was transferred to a permanent facility. The federal interim storage program would temporarily consolidate spent fuel away from reactor sites that have limited capacity.

But when efforts for a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada stalled, the role of consolidated interim storage was put in a precarious position. Spent fuel continued to accumulate at nuclear power plants across the country, the federal government could not provide more temporary storage because it would violate the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and the NRC did not have explicit authority to license an external body to create temporary storage. This tension is the impetus for NRC v. Texas case now at the Supreme Court.

There are a variety of arguments both for and against temporary storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel in the United States. Proponents cite that reactor host communities should not be subjected to living near radioactive waste for more time than they initially consented; interim storage, they say, would increase safety and economic efficiency through consolidation. Critics, in contrast, argue that a community near an interim facility risks the same fate of non-consent in the event of further delay in creating a permanent waste repository and that the safety risks from additional transportation and shuffling outweigh the benefits of consolidation.

Lower court’s contradictory ruling. Two main questions will be argued in NRC v. Texas. The first is a matter of administrative process and pertains to whether Texas had the legal right to challenge the NRC in the first place. Texas first challenged the commission under the 1950 Hobbs Act (which is not the Hobbs Act used in criminal prosecutions of organized crime), an administrative law statute that gives “aggrieved parties” the right to challenge federal agency actions. The NRC claims Texas did not follow proper procedure to be considered an aggrieved party and, therefore, did not have authority to challenge the license.

The second question is a matter of the function and authority of the NRC and is rooted in the language of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Texas argues that the NRC only has authority to grant temporary spent nuclear fuel storage licenses on the site of the reactor from which the waste originated. Therefore, Texas claims, the commission had no right to grant the license for a temporary storage facility in the state. The NRC, however, cites multiple previous court decisions that uphold this authorization. These federal-state disputes make a case like this ripe for Supreme Court intervention.

Like most other Supreme Court cases, NRC v. Texas is an appeal of a previously decided case in a lower court: Texas v. NRC. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

NRC’s appeal. The Supreme Court may decide in a variety of ways concerning Texas’ authority under the Hobbs Act and the NRC’s authority under the Atomic Energy Act and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. While clarification as to whether Texas was a proper “party aggrieved” is certainly important, it is likely the Supreme Court will take the opportunity to define the scope of the NRC’s abilities regardless of the interpretation of the Hobbs Act. Even if the Supreme Court finds that Texas was not a proper “party aggrieved,” the Court will still have the ability to hold the issued license void despite improper administrative procedures taken by Texas.

………………………………………………………. Because there is no explicit authorization in either act, the Supreme Court will likely rule that the NRC lacks clear congressional approval. If this is the case, then the Supreme Court will have to decide whether private, off-reactor spent fuel storage is a matter of major national significance— also known as a “major question.” While the Supreme Court has yet to hear arguments on this specific issue, there are reasonable explanations for either ruling.

……………………………………Some legal experts argue that private off-reactor waste is not a major question. Because on-site storage is exorbitantly expensive, a consolidated interim facility operated by a private entity will likely alleviate taxpayers’ burden. The West Virginia case was decided partially on its nationwide economic implications, but such implications are not present in this case. Another argument is that the NRC issued its regulations for private off-reactor storage two years before the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed. The fact that Congress did not revoke this authority from the NRC when passing the act could be interpreted as implicit approval. If the Supreme Court agrees with this perspective, it will likely allow Interim Storage Partners’ license to stand, even if the NRC did not have the explicit authority to issue that license.

Other arguments exist for this issue being a major question……………………………………

No perfect ruling. Either ruling will no doubt have vast consequences on the US nuclear waste management problem. A ruling in favor of the NRC would provide support for the nuclear industry’s ability to manage spent fuel, particularly during the continuous delays in permanent repository development. This result could also encourage private investment in nuclear energy by providing clearer pathways for managing waste, potentially revitalizing confidence in the industry’s long-term viability. However, a decision in NRC’s favor would not resolve all concerns with nuclear waste management. Many communities oppose the siting of temporary storage facilities, citing safety risks and the lack of a permanent solution. Resistance will continue to grow at local and state levels if these broader concerns go unaddressed. Congress will need to continue developing directives that strengthen and complement private solutions to waste management. A ruling in favor of the NRC would undoubtedly be a win for the nuclear industry, the federal government, and reactor host communities, as short-term pressures caused by on-site waste storage can finally be addressed. In the long term, this ruling will do little to permanently solve the waste problem and may place the nuclear industry into a false sense of security amidst concerns of interim facilities becoming de facto repositories.

If the Supreme Court rules against the NRC, it will create substantial uncertainty for the nuclear industry by rejecting the NRC’s authority to license private off-site storage facilities. Other corporations that currently plan to construct such facilities, such as Holtec International in New Mexico, will risk the revocation of their licenses. Decommissioned reactors with on-site storage may face danger to their storage license renewals, which will force active reactor sites to take in external waste while still generating their own. Situations like these can heighten safety and security risks, as many sites lack the infrastructure or oversight necessary for long-term storage and management.

However, a ruling against the NRC may bring increased attention to the issue and compel Congress to act decisively. ……………………………………… . A ruling against the NRC will likely be to the immediate detriment of the nuclear industry, the federal government, and reactor host communities. These pressures, however, may urge lawmakers to develop a new, permanent solution once and for all.

In the context of the nuclear waste problem, a ruling in favor of the NRC will be a short-term benefit but bring long-term risks. A ruling against the NRC will be a short-term detriment but may spur renewed action for long-term solutions. Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, Congress must dictate a permanent solution, which will be less likely to occur if short-term pressures are alleviated by ruling in favor of the NRC. In the absence of immediate Congressional intervention, the nuclear industry and the Energy Department must still work closely and in good faith with host communities. Anything else will result in complete failure of fair and democratic planning—as has been observed time and time again.

Editor’s note: Arguments on the NRC v. Texas case will be held before the Supreme Court on March 5, 2025. Summaries, audio files, and opinions will be accessible here after the hearing. The Supreme Court will issue its opinion before recess in late June 2025. Proceedings and orders will be made available as they come here. https://thebulletin.org/2025/02/scotus-goes-nuclear-justices-decision-could-seal-spent-fuel-storage-options-for-decades/

February 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | legal, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries