nuclear-news

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

Zelensky’s hostility to peace triggers White House meltdown.

Those who insist that Zelensky was ambushed are overlooking the cordial, lengthy exchange that occurred before the meeting turned testy. In a room full of aides and news cameras, Trump, Vance, and Zelensky held court for more than 40 minutes. It was Zelensky who became confrontational each time the two US leaders spoke favorably about negotiations with Russia.

because Trump stressed that his goal is to end the war through diplomacy, Zelensky grew agitated.

While Zelensky now claims that Russia cannot be negotiated with, his own representatives in Istanbul hold a much different view.

Aaron Maté, aaronmate.net, Sun, 02 Mar 2025 https://www.aaronmate.net/p/zelenskys-hostility-to-peace-triggers?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=158233237&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1b65ob&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Long rewarded by Washington and NATO for undermining diplomacy with Russia, Zelensky grew confrontational — and told outright falsehoods — when Donald Trump and JD Vance told him to make peace.

A contentious White House meeting between President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has thrown US-Ukrainian relations into disarray. The meeting resulted in Zelensky’s ejection from the White House, the cancellation of a planned minerals agreement, and, according to one report, a review of continued US military assistance to Ukraine.

For panicked cheerleaders of the proxy war against Russia, the consensus view is that Trump has betrayed a stalwart US ally, sided with an enemy in Moscow, and may have even deliberately triggered the clash to serve his treacherous agenda.

Those who insist that Zelensky was ambushed are overlooking the cordial, lengthy exchange that occurred before the meeting turned testy. In a room full of aides and news cameras, Trump, Vance, and Zelensky held court for more than 40 minutes. It was Zelensky who became confrontational each time the two US leaders spoke favorably about negotiations with Russia.

In his opening remarks, Trump criticized his predecessor Joe Biden for refusing to “speak to Russia whatsoever” and expressed his hope to bring the war “to a close.” Zelensky responded by calling Vladimir Putin a “a killer and terrorist” and vowing that there would be “of course no compromises with the killer about our territories.” In a paranoid threat, he also declared that unless Trump helps him “stop Putin,” then the Russian leader will invade the Baltic states “to bring them back to his empire”, which would draw the US into the war, despite the “big nice ocean” shielding the US from Europe: “Your soldiers will fight.”

Trump did not interrupt or object to these initial, belligerent comments. The closest he came to a direct criticism occurred when a reporter asked about Zelensky’s avowed refusal to compromise. Trump replied that “certainly he’s going to have to make some compromises, but hopefully they won’t be as big as some people think you’re going to have to make.” Trump even promised that “we’re going to be continuing” US military support to Ukraine.

Yet because Trump also stressed that his goal is to end the war through diplomacy, Zelensky grew agitated. The tipping point came when, after 40 minutes, a reporter asked whether Trump has chosen to “align yourself too much with Putin.” Vance responded that, in his view, “the path to peace and the path to prosperity” entails “engaging in diplomacy.” It was here that Zelensky lost his composure and directly challenged Vance: “What kind of diplomacy, J.D., you are speaking about? What do you mean?”.

This drew a sharp reaction. Vance reminded Zelensky that his military is brutally nabbing Ukrainian men off the street to send them to the front lines, and that the US seeks “the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country.” Zelensky then doubled down by challenging Vance to visit Ukraine and reviving his attempted fearmongering. “You have a nice ocean and don’t feel it now,” he said, referring to the Atlantic, “but you will feel it in the future.” That veiled threat angered Trump, who proceeded to call out Zelensky for, among other things, “gambling with the lives of millions of people,” and “with World War III.”

In opting to confront Vance, Zelensky showed that he is so reflexively hostile to the notion of negotiating with Russia that he is willing to berate his chief sponsor, in public no less, for daring to suggest it. And to serve his agenda, Zelensky also showed that he is willing to engage in distortion and even outright falsification.

To make his case that Putin cannot be negotiated with, Zelensky invoked an agreement, brokered by France and Germany, that he signed with Putin in Paris on December 9, 2019. The pact called for a prisoner exchange, which, Zelensky asserted, Putin ignored. “He [Putin] didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners, but he didn’t do it,” Zelensky said.

Zelensky was not being truthful. He himself attended a December 29, 2019 ceremony welcoming the return of Ukrainian prisoners freed under his agreement with Putin. Then in April 2020, his office hailed the release of a third round of prisoners.

omitted his own record in undermining diplomacy with Moscow.

The December 2019 Paris agreement recommitted Ukraine and Russia to the Minsk peace process, the UN Security Council-endorsed framework for ending the war that broke out in 2014 between the post-coup Ukrainian government and Russian-backed eastern Ukrainian rebels.

After initially taking some positive steps toward implementation, Zelensky ultimately refused to comply, a stance that he previewed in Putin’s company. During a joint news conference in Paris, Zelensky visibly smirked as Putin discussed the importance of following through with Minsk. The following March, Zelensky, under pressure from Ukraine’s ultra-nationalists and US-funded NGOs, abandoned a pledge to hold direct talks with representatives of the breakaway Donbas republics, which would be granted limited autonomy under Minsk.

By that point, the Kremlin had begun raising concerns that Zelensky was not following through. A Kremlin readout of a call between Putin and Zelensky the previous month noted that Putin had “stressed the importance of the full and unconditional fulfillment of all measures and decisions made in Minsk and adopted at the Normandy summits, including the one held in Paris on December 9, 2019… Vladimir Putin directly asked if Kyiv intends to really implement the Minsk agreements.”

Zelensky kept signaling that he had no such intention. In mid-July 2020, Zelensky’s party proposed a measure that would hold local elections throughout Ukraine – yet in a deliberate omission, the plan excluded Donbas, which was supposed to have new elections under Minsk. By that point, Zelensky was openly contemptuous of Donbas residents. “The people of the Donbas have been brainwashed,” Zelensky complained. “They live in the Russian information space… I can’t reach them.”

The entry of the Biden team to the Oval Office in January 2021 encouraged Zelensky’s confrontational path. In February 2021 – one year before Russia invaded – Zelensky shut down three television networks tied to his main political opposition, which advocated better ties with Russia. A Zelensky aide later disclosed that this crackdown was “conceived as a welcome gift to the Biden administration,” which offered its enthusiastic endorsement of Zelensky’s effort to “counter Russia’s malign influence.”

The following month, the Biden administration returned the favor by approving its first military package for Ukraine, valued at $125 million. That encouraged even more bellicosity from Zelensky’s government. Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council approved a strategy to recover all of Crimea from Russian control, including by force. Ukrainian military leaders also announced that they were “ready” to retake Donbas by force, with the help of NATO allies.

By this point, Zelensky was openly disdainful of the diplomatic path that he had signed onto in Paris. “I have no intention of talking to terrorists, and it is just impossible for me in my position,” he declared in April 2021. Zelensky also demanded changes to Minsk. “I’m now participating in the process that was designed before my time,” he said. “The Minsk process should be more flexible in this situation. It should serve the purposes of today not of the past.”

Zelensky and his aides maintained this stance in the weeks before Russia’s February 2022 invasion. “The position of Ukraine, which has been expressed many times at different levels, is unchanged,” top Zelensky advisor Andrii Yermak said. “There have not been and will not be any direct negotiations with the separatists.” Added Ukrainian security chief Oleksiy Danilov: “The fulfillment of the Minsk agreement means the country’s destruction.” Perhaps to underscore the point, Zelensky’s government escalated attacks on rebel-controlled areas.

The Russian invasion forced Zelensky to abandon his hostility to negotiations, resulting in the Istanbul talks of March-April 2022. While Zelensky now claims that Russia cannot be negotiated with, his own representatives in Istanbul hold a much different view.

“We managed to find a very real compromise,” Oleksandr Chalyi, a senior member of the Ukrainian negotiating team, recalled in December 2023. “We were very close in the middle of April, in the end of April, to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement.” Putin, he added, “tried to do everything possible to conclude [an] agreement with Ukraine.”

According to former Zelensky advisor Oleksiy Arestovich, who also took part in the talks, “the Istanbul peace initiatives were very good.” While Ukraine “made concessions,” he said, “the amount of their [Russia’s] concessions was greater. This will never happen again.” The Ukraine war, Arestovich concluded, “could have ended with the Istanbul agreements, and several hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive.”

The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul talks by refusing to provide Ukraine with security guarantees and encouraging Zelensky to keep fighting instead. Zelensky’s decision to obey their dictates helps explain why he is so desperate to obtain a security guarantee from Trump. Having walked away from a peace deal that would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, Zelensky needs a tangible Western security commitment to show for it.

In Zelensky’s defense, he has also faced, from the start of his presidency, the threat of violence from Ukrainian ultra-nationalists staunchly opposed to any peace deal with Russia and allied eastern Ukrainians. And rather than help him overcome this domestic obstacle to peace, Washington has enabled it. As the late scholar Stephen F. Cohen prophetically warned in October 2019, Zelensky would not be able to “go forward with full peace negotiations unless America has his back” against “a quasi-fascist movement” that was literally threatening his life.

For this reason, it was disrespectful of Vance to insist that Zelensky thank the US for its military support, when that assistance has in fact fueled Ukraine’s decimation. Yet Zelensky is also responsible for putting himself in this position. Because he dutifully served the US goal of using Ukraine to bleed Russia, Zelensky was rewarded with political and media adulation, along with tens of billions of dollars in NATO funding.

The unprecedented dispute at the White House shows that Zelensky’s disingenuous hostility to negotiations is no longer welcome in Washington. While this may prove fatal to Zelensky’s political career and US proxy warfare against Russia, it is a tangible step toward ending his country’s destruction.

March 5, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Reference | 1 Comment

The SMR Gamble: Betting on Nuclear to Fuel the Data Center Boom

“Who’s going to insure these plants?” “That’s a huge unknown. “

Mar 3, 2025, by Sonal Patel  Power Mag

Data center power demand is accelerating, pushing the grid to its limits and prompting tech giants to bet on next-generation nuclear reactors. But given steep costs, regulatory hurdles, and uncertain scalability, is nuclear the future of data center energy—or just another high-stakes gamble?

At the end of January, Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) startup DeepSeek unveiled two large language models (LLMs)—DeepSeek-R1 and DeepSeek-R1-zero. Unlike previous generations of AI models, DeepSeek’s breakthrough reduced the compute cost of AI inference by a factor of 10, allowing it to achieve OpenAI GPT-4.5-level performance while consuming only a fraction of the power.

The news upended future electricity demand assumptions, rattling both the energy and tech sectors. Investment markets reacted swiftly, driving down expectations—and share prices—for power generation, small modular reactor (SMR) developers, uranium suppliers, gas companies, and major tech firms.

Yet, amid the chaos, optimism abounded. Analysts pointed to Jevons paradox, the economic principle that efficiency gains can increase consumption, rather than reduce it. “Our model shows a ~90% drop in the unit cost of compute over a six-year period, and our recent survey of corporate AI adoption suggests increases in the magnitude of AI use cases,” said Morgan Stanley Research. The U.S. remains the dominant market for AI-driven data center expansion, with 40 GW of new projects under development, aligning with a projected 57 GW of AI-related compute demand by 2028. Already, that load is transforming the energy landscape. A recent POWER analysis shows that U.S. data center electricity consumption could reach between 214 TWh and 675 TWh annually by 2030, up from 176 TWh in 2023 (Figure 1 on original)………………………………

Emerging Business Challenges

Still, beyond regulations, the actual business of running co-located nuclear plants remains uncertain. While recent discussions highlight tech companies as potential investors in advanced nuclear facilities, data center sources confirmed most aren’t attracted to the prospect of owning and operating nuclear plants.

“Data center operators are not in the business of running power plants,” said Walsh. “They want reliability and cost certainty, but they don’t want to deal with regulatory oversight, fuel procurement, or reactor maintenance.”………………………

From an operational standpoint, co-located facilities can pose new risks, as Nina Sadighi, professional engineer and founder of Eradeh Power Consulting told POWER. “Who’s going to insure these plants?” she asked. “That’s a huge unknown. Right now, insurance providers are hesitant because of the regulatory and operational complexity. The traditional nuclear liability structures are built around large reactors with established operational histories, and when you introduce something novel like SMRs or microreactors, you’re dealing with a very different risk profile.”

Sadighi, though generally optimistic about nuclear’s suitability for data centers, also pointed to potential workforce-related challenges that hinge on timely deployment. “If we train nuclear workers now, but deployment gets delayed, those workers won’t wait around,” she said. “The nuclear workforce pipeline is not like a tech workforce, where people can pivot between roles quickly. These are specialized skills that require years of training, and if there’s uncertainty about job stability, we risk losing them to other industries entirely,” she said. Sadighi also raised concerns about the stringent operational protocols that add to labor inefficiencies.

Finally, while the data center industry isn’t solely bent on economics—and told POWER sustainability with a long-term vision is a bigger priority—scaling up will require significant investment. That has sparked all kinds of debate. Lux Research estimates first-of-a-kind (FOAK) SMRs could cost nearly three times more than natural gas ($331/MWh versus $124/MWh) and more than 10 times more when factoring in cost overruns and delays. The firm projects SMRs won’t be cost-competitive before 2035. “Cheap nuclear just isn’t in the cards in the next two decades,” it says.

The fundamental debate is rooted in several uncertainties—which is not uncommon for emerging sectors, experts also generally pointed out. “Tax credits—especially the clean electricity production tax credits and investment tax credits—will be vital to the commercial viability of these projects, especially considering the FOAK risk,” said Teplinsky. “DOE [U.S. Department of Energy] loan guarantees and direct financing from the Federal Financing Bank at low rates are also essential to companies’ ability to secure debt and reduce cost of capital. Grant funding to support commercial demonstrations and high-assay low-enriched uranium support are also key.” ………………..
https://www.powermag.com/the-smr-gamble-betting-on-nuclear-to-fuel-the-data-center-boom/

March 5, 2025 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power Is the Cuckoo in the Climate Policy Nest

Politicians in Australia, the U.K., and elsewhere are obfuscating the true cost of next-generation technologies.

Enthusiasm for a new generation of nuclear technology has gripped politicians across the world. The United Kingdom is the latest country to take action, with the Labour Party government set to revise planning rules in February 2025 with a goal of restoring the country’s position as “one of the world leaders on nuclear.” Key to this plan is accelerating the deployment of a new generation of miniature nuclear and small modular reactors (SMRs)—compact units that generate less power than traditional nuclear reactors but can be assembled onsite.

Similarly, in Australia, as part of the Australian campaign for a federal election expected in late April, the Coalition Party led by Peter Dutton unveiled a plan in December 2024 to adopt nuclear energy as a solution for providing efficient and affordable electricity. The proposal—which has drawn significant opposition from the public, as it would overturn a decades-old bans on nuclear reactors—is to build conventional nuclear stations and SMRs, with a goal of having them running by the late 2030s. The plan includes the announcement of seven proposed reactor locations across the country

There are high expectations for SMRs, but there is also a major challenge: They
have been touted to require lower capital costs and shorter construction
times than the traditional large-scale nuclear reactors. However, in
reality, SMRs are facing similar pitfalls as large-scale nuclear power, and
the disappointing results from the first pilot project in the United States
should serve as a cautionary tale for governments and developers…………………………… [Subscribers only]  https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/03/04/nuclear-power-australia-britain-reactors/

March 5, 2025 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Russia agrees to help US in negotiations with Iran over nuclear program, Bloomberg reports

by Kateryna Hodunova andThe Kyiv Independent news desk, March 4, 2025 

Moscow has pledged to help Washington in dealing with Iran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program and its support for regional anti-American proxies, Bloomberg reported on March 4, citing its undisclosed sources.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has been trying to restore relations with Russia, which were severed under the previous administration when the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022.

Trump voiced his interest in negotiations with Iran to Putin during a phone call in February. A few days later, the U.S. and Russian delegations discussed this issue during talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Bloomberg reported……………………………… https://kyivindependent.com/russia-agrees-to-help-us-in-negotiations-with-iran-over-nuclear-program-bloomberg-reports/

March 5, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

Trump Pauses All Military Aid to Ukraine

The pause applies to weapons that are already in transit

by Dave DeCamp March 3, 2025,  https://news.antiwar.com/2025/03/03/trump-pauses-all-military-aid-to-ukraine/ 

President Trump has paused all military aid to Ukraine, Bloomberg reported on Monday, citing a senior Pentagon official.

The pause applies to all US military equipment bound for Ukraine that’s not currently in the country, including weapons that are in transit on aircraft and ships or waiting in Poland to be delivered.

The Pentagon official said the US was pausing all military to Ukraine until the country’s leadership demonstrates a good faith commitment to peace. A senior Trump administration official told Fox News, “This is not permanent termination of aid, it’s a pause.”

The move comes a few days after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky clashed with President Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office, an argument that started after Zelensky questioned the administration’s push for diplomacy with Russia.

News of the pause comes after reports said the Trump administration was holding a meeting on Monday afternoon on the possibility of pausing military aid to Ukraine. Before the meeting, the US had already frozen weapons sales to Ukraine under the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing program, which only accounted for a small portion of the US weapons supply to Ukraine.

While the Trump administration hasn’t approved any new military aid for Ukraine, President Biden signed off on a massive number of arms packages during his final months in office that would take years to deliver.

The aid approved by Biden came in two forms: the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), which ships weapons straight from US military stockpiles, and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which allows the Pentagon to purchase arms for Ukraine.

March 5, 2025 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

More than 145 Reports Added to IAEA Incident and Trafficking Database in 2024

 In 2024, 147 incidents of illegal or unauthorized activities involving
nuclear and other radioactive material were reported to the Incident and
Trafficking Database (ITDB), a number aligned with the historical average.
The new data released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
today underlines the need for continued vigilance and improvement of
regulatory oversight for security of nuclear and other radioactive
material.

 IAEA 28th Feb 2025,
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/more-than-145-reports-added-to-iaea-incident-and-trafficking-database-in-2024

March 5, 2025 Posted by | safety | Leave a comment

US poised to house nuclear weapons in Britain for first time in two decades

Mothballed bunkers in Suffolk undergo extensive upgrade as America eyes ‘special weapons’ sites

US nuclear weapons could be set to return to British soil almost two decades after Washington removed its last warheads, satellite images have revealed.

The images, published in a report from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), indicate that 22 previously mothballed nuclear bunkers at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk have
undergone extensive upgrade work. A decision to reactivate Lakenheath’s
nuclear capability for US aircraft was made as long ago as 2021, the report
suggests, with the proposals gathering force following Russia’s invasion
of Ukraine three years ago.

 Telegraph 4th March 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/03/04/us-readies-british-air-base-house-nuclear-weapons/

March 5, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Is giving old reactors new life the future of nuclear energy?

Countries want to squeeze more electricity from ageing power plants to help meet
global demand, but the strategy has its own challenges. The Torness nuclear
power station on Scotland’s south-east coast is showing its age. Over the
past few years, cracks have started to appear in the graphite bricks
encasing the uranium-filled fuel rods.

The bricks are too difficult to replace, so engineers routinely lower microscopic cameras into the reactor to monitor the wear and tear caused by radiation. If the cracks start to
jeopardise the reactor’s ability to safely shut down during an extreme
earthquake or other disaster, it cannot stay open.

So far, so good. And the
plant’s owner EDF, the French energy group, intends to keep the station
running until at least 2030, 42 years after it opened in 1988. Station
director Paul Forrest is confident. “But if the graphite inspection
starts surprising us, we will change course,” he says.

His efforts are part of an urgent, global quest to squeeze more years of electricity out of
existing nuclear power plants to meet rising demand for low carbon power as
countries try to move away from fossil fuels. Most of the world’s
operating nuclear power plants, around 400, were built in the 1970s to
1990s and are now coming to the end of their projected lives or original
licence periods.

 FT 3rd March 2025 https://www.ft.com/content/91784663-eba2-48e6-a0a3-47e04774c5c0

March 5, 2025 Posted by | safety | Leave a comment

Keir Starmer faces backbench rebellion over ‘shortsighted’ cuts to aid budget

 Keir Starmer is facing a backbench revolt by Labour MPs this week as anger
mounts over the government’s decision to cut the international
development budget by almost half in order to pay for an increase in
defence spending.

The Labour chair of the all-party select committee on
international development, Sarah Champion, who has already called on the
government to rethink the decision, has secured a debate in the Commons on
Wednesday at which dozens of Labour backbenchers are considering
intervening to express their dismay. One of those who may speak out,
according to colleagues, is Anneliese Dodds, who resigned as international
development minister on Friday.

 Guardian 2nd March 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/02/keir-starmer-faces-backbench-rebellion-over-shortsighted-cuts-to-aid-budget

March 5, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

 Conservatives’ push to identify ‘suitable sites’ for nuclear reactors in Telford and Wrekin is defeated.

A Conservative move to get Telford and
Wrekin’s local plan to ‘identify suitable sites’ for small nuclear
reactors was defeated as the borough’s all important development
blueprint moved to the next stage.

 Shropshire Star 3rd March 2025 https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2025/03/03/conservatives-push-to-identify-suitable-sites-for-nuclear-reactors-in-telford-and-wrekin-is-defeated/

March 5, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Another troubling week in nuclear news

Some bits of good news –  
 10 Ways Investing in Children’s Well-Being Changed the World      
China is Rewiring  the Global South With Clean Power.   We’re making child marriages a thing of the past in Malaysia.  


TOP STORIES.

Zelensky needs to go …been risking nuclear war far too long.

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

Global security arrangements “unravelling”, UN chief warns nuclear disarmament conference. 

The Supreme Court faces the absurdly difficult problem of where to put nuclear waste. 

More powerful than Hiroshima: how the largest ever nuclear weapons test built a nation of leaders in the Marshall Islands.

Climate. A Lawsuit Against Greenpeace Is Meant to Bankrupt It and Deter Public Protests, Environmental Groups Warn. Total collapse of vital Atlantic currents unlikely this century, study finds.

Noel’s notes. Ukraine to soon jump back out of the fire and into the frying-pan?

AUSTRALIA. 

NUCLEAR ITEMS

ECONOMICS. 

ENERGY. UK Energy Secretary Signals China Pivot.

ENVIRONMENT. ‘Fish disco’ row risks fresh delays to Hinkley Point nuclear plant.

ETHICS and RELIGION. Archbishop Gallagher: Nuclear weapons pose existential threat.

EVENTS.  Nuclear Ban Week – the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).   1 March -Remembering All Nuclear Victims. 6 March – WEBINAR –Arming for Armageddon: How US Militarism could lead to Nuclear War

HEALTH. Nuclear reactors killing Americans at accelerating rate.

LEGAL. SCOTUS goes nuclear: Justices’ decision could seal spent fuel storage options for decades. Beyond Nuclear files two relicensing legal actions.

OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . 93% say NO: latest polls in Lincolnshire condemn nuke dump plan

PERSONAL STORIES. The island priest who fought a nuclear rockets range.

POLITICS. 

POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Donald Trump was rude to Zelensky, but he did tell him the hard truths. Zelensky: Victim of Colosseum Politics.

The National goes to the UN: The fight for nuclear disarmament– ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/02/27/1-b1-scotus-goes-nuclear-justices-decision-could-seal-spent-fuel-storage-options-for-decades/ 

US correct to vote against UN resolution solely condemning Russia for Ukraine war. The pro-war lobby in the West needs to come up with new ideas, rather than saying the same old things.

SAFETY. United States: White House Threatens Nuclear Regulatory Commission‘s Independence. IAEA Director General Statement on Fire Situation in Chernobyl nuclear station. Ontario’s outdated nuclear vision poses serious safety and financial risks.

A Single Trumputin Drone Can Turn the “Peaceful Atom” Into World War 3. Vladimir Putin right now has in his sights nearly The physical hazards of nuclear energy. IAEA mission arrives at nuclear plant in Ukraine through Russia.

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

WASTES. Tonnes of nuclear waste to be sent back to Europe. Hinkley Point C will be a Sellafield waste dump . Nuclear Decommissioning Authority budget raises Sellafield safety concerns. Public concern increasing about nuclear waste shipments west of Sudbury. Election candidates should face nuclear waste questions: group.

WAR and CONFLICT. Israel seen as likely to attack Iran’s nuclear sites by midyear.

WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.

The Pentagon and Starlink Satellites. 

Nuclear weapons are ‘one-way road to annihilation’ warns Guterres. 
Iran on ‘high alert’ amid fears of attack on nuclear sites. Starmer drags 
Britain deeper into war drive. Reawakening a Nuclear Legacy: The Potential Return of the 
US Nuclear Mission to RAF Lakenheath. John Swinney: UK’s nu
clear deterrent offers ‘no tangible benefit’. As Freed Palestinians Describe Torture, 
Trump OKs $3 Billion Arms Package for Israel.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Weekly Newsletter | Leave a comment

Zelensky needs to go …been risking nuclear war far too long

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 2 Mar 25

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky is a spectacularly failed leader. He’s failed on every indicator of good governance.

He failed the largely Russian cultured Ukrainians in the Donbas who overwhelmingly voted him for president in 2019. He promised he’d end the war on them by their own government after the 2014 coup toppled elected pro Russian President Victor Yanukovych. Once in office Zelensky caved to the ultra-nationalists who wielded the real power in Kyiv. The war on the Donbas separatist movement escalated under Zelensky. He massed 60,000 elite troops on the Donbas border to complete destruction of the separatist movement. Guess what that provoked February 24, 2022?

He failed by continuing his predecessors’ desire to join NATO, knowing full well Ukraine in NATO crossed a red line Russia viewed as an existential security threat. That made the February 22, 2022 Russian invasion even more inevitable.

Two months into the war he failed to conclude a peace treaty with Russia in April, 2022 that was about to be signed. He allowed US and UK war hawks bully him into rejecting the settlement which would have cost Ukraine nary a square mile of territory. He swallowed whole their delusion he could win the war with US weapons but not US cannon fodder Now he’s lost about 45,000 square miles for caving to his US/UK masters of war..

Worst of all, Zelensky failed the most important responsibility of any leader: do nothing that could risk nuclear annihilation. He’s spent the entire 3 years of war asking, begging, demanding the US give him the weaponry to attack deep inside Russia. He appears oblivious how easily such attacks could trigger nuclear war between the US and Russ

Astoundingly, when an errant Ukrainian missile killed a couple of Poles in Poland, Zelensky claimed that represented a Russian attack on NATO requiring an immediate NATO military response. Hello WWIII. That alone made Zelensky unfit to serve another day as Ukraine leader.

With the US proxy war on Russia lost and Ukraine in ruins, Zelensky’s failed days in power are dwindling. His exit cannot come soon enough.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Nuclear power struggling to maintain current level of stagnation, let alone achieve any growth

Alongside the risk of Fukushima-scale disasters, the weapons proliferation risks, the risk of attacks on nuclear plants (and the reality of attacks on nuclear plants in Ukraine), and the intractable nuclear waste legacy, the reality is that nuclear power just can’t compete economically.

The industry’s greatest problem at the moment is a recognition of this by investors, resulting in a capital strike.

Darrin Durant, Jim Falk & Jim Green, Mar 3, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-power-struggling-to-maintain-current-level-of-stagnation-let-alone-achieve-any-growth/

The current push in Australia to deploy nuclear power reactors once again contrasts an excessive optimism by nuclear proponents against the continuing stagnant situation of nuclear power worldwide. That contrast is the subject of our new report for the EnergyScience Coalition.

The latest nuclear proposals are built on three speculations. 

First, projected AI-related energy demand where – as with nuclear power proponents in the 1970’s who projected huge demand that never eventuated – there are already signs demand is overblown. For example the new leading AI entrant DeepSeek requires just 10 per cent of the energy of competitors.

Second, speculative techno-optimism that new technologies such as small modular reactors will resolve industry project management issues. Yet these small reactors are unproven. 

Third, prospective wish-fulfilment, where dozens of nuclear ‘newcomer’ countries are offered as saviours, despite not having reactor approvals and funding in place in a large majority of cases.

So what is the state of nuclear power in 2024? A review by the World Nuclear Industry Status Report notes that seven new reactors were connected to grids last year while four reactors were permanently closed. The net increase in operating nuclear capacity was 4.3 gigawatts (GW).

Worldwide nuclear power capacity was 371 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2024. That figure is near-identical to capacity of 368 GW two decades earlier in 2005.

As of 1 January 2025, the mean age of the nuclear power reactor fleet was 32.1 years. In 1990, the mean age was just 11.3 years. Due to the ageing of the reactor fleet, the International Atomic Energy Agency projects the closure of 325 GW of nuclear capacity from 2018 to 2050 – that’s 88 per cent of current worldwide capacity. Thus the industry faces a daunting challenge just to maintain its pattern of stagnation, let alone achieve any growth.

There were no ‘small modular reactor’ (SMR) startups in 2024. Indeed there has never been a single SMR startup unless you count so-called SMRs not built using factory ‘modular’ construction techniques, in which case there is one each in China and Russia.

The SMR sector continues to go nowhere with setbacks in 2024 including the suspension of the Nuward project in France (following previous decisions to abandon four other SMR projects) and the bankruptcy of US company Ultra Safe Nuclear. 

Nuclear growth dwarfed by renewables

In striking contrast to nuclear power’s net gain of 4.3 GW in 2024, the International Energy Agency’s October 2024 ‘Renewables 2024’ report estimates 666 GW of global renewable capacity additions in 2024. Based on the Agency’s estimate, renewables capacity growth was 155 times greater than that of nuclear power.

The International Energy Agency expects renewables to jump sharply from 30 per cent of global electricity generation in 2023 to 46 per cent in 2030.

Conversely, nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen steadily since the 1990s. As of 1 January 2025, nuclear power accounted for 9.15 per cent of global electricity production, barely half of its peak of 17.5 per cent in 1996.

A Bloomberg analysis finds that renewable energy investments reached $A1.17 trillion in 2024, up 8 per cent on the previous year, whereas nuclear investment was flat at $A55.1 billion. Thus renewable investments were 21 times greater than nuclear investments.

In contrast to massive cost overruns with nuclear projects, renewable costs have fallen sharply.

Lazard investment firm data shows that utility-scale solar and onshore wind became cheaper than nuclear power from 2010-2015. From 2009-2024, the cost of utility-scale solar fell 83 per cent; the cost of onshore wind fell 63 per cent; while nuclear costs increased 49 per cent.

Nuclear newcomer countries

Claims that 40-50 countries are actively considering or planning to introduce nuclear power, in addition to the 32 countries currently operating reactors, do not withstand scrutiny.

As of 1 January 2025, reactors were under construction in just 13 countries, two less than a year earlier. Seven percent of the world’s countries are building reactors; 93 percent are not.

Of the 13 countries building reactors, only three are potential nuclear newcomer countries building their first plant: Egypt, Bangladesh and Turkiye. In those three countries, the nuclear projects are led by Russian nuclear agencies with significant up-front funding from the Russian state.

The World Nuclear Association observes that apart from those three countries, no countries meet its criteria of ‘planned’ reactors, i.e. “approvals, funding or commitment in place, mostly expected to be in operation within the next 15 years.”

The number of potential newcomer countries with approvals and funding in place, or construction underway, is just three and those projects are funded heavily by the Russian state. That is the underwhelming reality underlying exaggerated claims about 40-50 countries pursuing nuclear power.

There is no evidence of a forthcoming wave of nuclear newcomer countries in the coming years and decades. At most there will be a trickle as has been the historical pattern with just seven newcomer countries over the past 40 years and just three this century.

The number of countries operating power reactors in 1996–1997 reached 32. Since then, nuclear newcomer countries have been matched by countries completing nuclear phase-outs and thus the number is stuck at 32. And less than one-third of those countries are building reactors (10/32).

It is doubtful whether the number of nuclear newcomer countries over the next 20-30 years will match the number of countries completing phase-outs.

Capital strike

Alongside the risk of Fukushima-scale disasters, the weapons proliferation risks, the risk of attacks on nuclear plants (and the reality of attacks on nuclear plants in Ukraine), and the intractable nuclear waste legacy, the reality is that nuclear power just can’t compete economically.

The industry’s greatest problem at the moment is a recognition of this by investors, resulting in a capital strike. Even with generous government/taxpayer subsidies, it has become difficult or impossible to fund new reactors – especially outside the sphere of China and Russia’s projects at home and abroad.

Who would bet tens of billions of dollars on nuclear power projects when the recent history in countries with vast expertise and experience has been disastrous?

In France, the latest cost estimate for the only recent reactor construction project increased seven-fold to A$39.4 billion for just one reactor. Construction took 17 years. No reactors are currently under construction in France.

In the US, one project in South Carolina, comprising two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, was abandoned in 2017 after $A14.3 billion was spent. Westinghouse declared bankruptcy and its debts almost forced its parent company Toshiba into bankruptcy. All that remains is the nukegate scandal: an avalanche of legal action including criminal cases.

The only other reactor construction project in the US – the twin-reactor Vogtle project in the state of Georgia – reached completion at a cost 12 times higher than early estimates. The final cost was at least $A27 billion per reactor. Completion was six to seven years behind schedule.

No power reactors are currently under construction in the US. Thirteen reactors have been permanently shut down over the past 15 years.

The situation is just as bleak in the UK where there have been 24 permanent reactor shut-downs since the last reactor startup 30 years ago, in 1995.

The 3.2 GW twin-reactor Hinkley Point project in Somerset was meant to be complete in 2017 but construction didn’t even begin until 2018 and the estimated completion date has been pushed back to 2030-31.

The latest cost estimate – A$46.6 billion per reactor – is 11.5 times higher than early estimates. The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the Hinkley Point project could amount to $A60.8 billion and the UK Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee said that “consumers are left footing the bill and the poorest consumers will be hit hardest.”

The estimated cost of the planned 3.2 GW twin-reactor Sizewell C project in the UK has jumped to $A81 billion or $A40.5 billion per reactor, twice the cost estimate in 2020. Securing funding to allow construction to begin is proving to be difficult and protracted despite a new ‘Regulated Asset Base’ funding model which foists the enormous risk of enormous cost overruns onto taxpayers and electricity ratepayers.

Lessons for Australia

Those three countries – France, the US and the UK – have vast nuclear expertise and experience. They all enjoy synergies between civil and military nuclear programs – President Macron said in a 2020 speech that without nuclear power in France there would be no nuclear weapons, and vice versa.

All of the above-mentioned construction projects were (or are) on existing nuclear sites. All projects were (or are) long delayed and tens of billions of dollars over-budget.

Claims that potential nuclear newcomer countries such as Australia, without any of those advantages, could build reactors quickly and cheaply are not credible.

Our report expanding on these issues is posted at the EnergyScience Coalition website.

Darrin Durant is Associate Professor in Science and Technology Studies at the University of Melbourne. Jim Falk is a Professorial Fellow in the School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Melbourne and Emeritus Professor at the University of Wollongong. Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

The pro-war lobby in the West needs to come up with new ideas, rather than saying the same old things

As the war in Ukraine grinds towards its diplomatic denouement, those people who would like to avoid a negotiated settlement are not coming up with an alternative approach. 

Ian Proud, Strategic Culture Foundation, 02 Mar 2025 , mhttps://www.sott.net/article/498199-The-pro-war-lobby-in-the-West-needs-to-come-up-with-new-ideas-rather-than-saying-the-same-old-things

When western pundits resist efforts to bring an end to fighting in Ukraine, they never provide an alternative vision of what they would do differently.

A respected associate of mine asked me today if a ceasefire and peace process in Ukraine would simply embolden China and Russia to further aggression. This is a line oft repeated among the majority of politicians, journalists and so-called academics in the west, who are opposed to an ending of the war.

‘We can’t stop the war, because if we do, China will invade Taiwan and Russia will invade Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc.’

My view, for what it’s worth, is that an end to the war in Ukraine might embolden China longer-term over Taiwan in particular. I’ve seen no evidence that it will embolden Russia to invade NATO, precisely because Russia sees itself, in large part, as a country of Europe, even if it has been excluded.

However, and critically, if both China and Russia were so emboldened, then should we not ask ourselves how we have ended up in this position?

Russia’s decision to go to war was driven by a belief that it’s core strategic interests in preventing NATO expansion to its border via Ukraine was being ignored, and that it was subject to permanent sanctions with no possibility of removal through any concessions it might make.

That’s my opinion and one I know that many ‘realists’ share. But, in any case, the ‘what next’ question should have been considered as part of a longer-term strategic assessment when western nations pushed the NATO enlargement agenda.

We have known since at least 2008 that this was a redline for Russia. Did we expect Russia’s position to change and if so, how? If Russia’s position did not change, how far would we go to advance Ukraine’s NATO aspiration, including through direct military confrontation?

I’m not aware that those questions were ever asked or, if they were, considered rather than dismissed. And I was at the heart of British government decision making from the latter part of 2013, before the Ukraine crisis started (and must therefore accept some of the blame).

Without the United States, a war in Ukraine was never going to be sustainable for Europe, financially, politically or militarily. Yet no one thought this through. Or, if they did, they didn’t factor in the eminent risk of America doing an about face on policy one day, as is now happening.

With America now withdrawing, sustaining a losing war in Ukraine rather than calling a halt to the killing cannot be considered a legitimate strategy if its only goal is to avoid losing face. That makes us look weaker and more feckless.

If other states are now emboldened by the failure of western policy in Ukraine, that is not a sufficient reason to avoid an end to the bloodshed now. Our self-righteousness indignation to peace is merely a figleaf covering the deflated genitals of our policy failure. The west so badly mishandled relations in the eight years between the flashpoint of the Maidan and the start of war, not thinking through the consequences.

Russian actions and reactions in Ukraine have always been predictable.

They were predictable in February 2014.
They were predictable in February 2022.
They were predictable in February 2025.

I have heard senior British Ambassadors say that we were never going to fight for Ukraine. And we are the most hawkish nation in Europe. Why were we never going to fight? Because it would never be possible to ensure that the 27 nations of the EU or the 31 nations of NATO would come to a collective agreement to fight.

Someone would always block fighting. Compromises would be made. We would pursue a lowest common denominator. That led us to a sanctions-only approach.

As I have said many times before, in the game of geostrategic chess, President Putin always knew that large, chattering teams of politicians around the table couldn’t outmanoeuvre him. In fact, they would take weeks and months just to agree on the meaning of pawn, let alone whether to move it on the board.

We lost through indecision and have yet to learn the lesson. You can’t fight wars by committee.But you can make peace in a group.As Albert Einstein said, ‘we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them’. That is seen by some as the source of the misattributed saying, ‘the definition of insanity is to do the same thing but expect a different result.’

As the war in Ukraine grinds towards its diplomatic denouement, those people who would like to avoid a negotiated settlement are not coming up with an alternative approach. They are not introducing new ideas to up the ante, if that is what they want to do. In fact, I don’t know what they want to do, because they’ve been saying exactly the same things for three years and I am epically bored right now.

The problem here, is that neither are they advancing a credible argument against ending the war. Their position seems to be, the war is bad, it’s all Russia’s fault and if we give in now, Russia will be emboldened to strike elsewhere. Their defensive position is held together by straplines not substantive arguments.

In a recent speech, the veteran U.S. Democrat politician Bernie Sanders said:‘Russia started the war, not Ukraine, Putin is a dictator, not Zelensky.’ While I am sure he may believe that it’s just another banal outburst, intended more to rail against the political leaders in his own country, rather than to bring peace in Ukraine. Of course, people view the origins of the war differently and people are entitled to their views.

Debate on the war in Ukraine has become reduced to ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ with voices of reason and realism in the west, like mine, stifled by the mainstream. But we will never reach a position in which there is a universally accepted view of who was at fault and who was not. Instead, let’s try to accept that every side in this conflict takes some share of the blame, be that Russia, Ukraine, the U.S., UK and everyone else. Let’s have a frank but polite discussion about a way forward.

President Trump has advanced a new policy proposition that engagement and dialogue is vital if we are to bring an end to the fighting. British and European leaders can’t continue unchallenged, carrying on as if the world hasn’t changed. They need to come up with genuinely new and constructive ideas, rather than continuing to say the same things. And reengage in dialogue with Russia.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

A Single Trumputin Drone Can Turn the “Peaceful Atom” Into World War 3

Putin, or anyone else of his ilk, would need precisely one technician with one weaponized drone to turn any “peaceful” nuke into a radioactive apocalypse.

Even without drone attacks, America’s 21st century reactor projects are catastrophic economic failures.

No significant supply from SMRs can be realistically expected in less than a decade. None can be protected from drone attacks.

And no explosion at a wind turbine or solar panel will ever cause a radioactive apocalypse.

by Harvey Wasserman, March 2, 2025,  https://freepress.org/article/single-trumputin-drone-can-turn-%E2%80%9Cpeaceful-atom%E2%80%9D-world-war-3

Vladimir Putin right now has in his sights nearly 300 pre-deployed atomic weapons set to easily launch a radioactive apocalypse with a single drone strike.

He may already have crashed an early warning into the sarcophagus at Chernobyl.

And taken as a whole, the “Peaceful Atom” lends a terrifying reality to Donald Trump’s Oval Office threat of an impending World War 3.

Some 180 operational “Peaceful Atom” reactors now operate throughout Europe. There are 93 more in the US, 19 in Canada, two in Mexico.

Putin, or anyone else of his ilk, would need precisely one technician with one weaponized drone to turn any “peaceful” nuke into a radioactive apocalypse.

When Donald Trump brought Ukraine’s Volodymir Zelensky into the Oval Office to accuse him of flirting with “World War 3,” atomic reactors were among the specifics he failed to cite.

As of today, more than 50 commercial nuclear power plants are considered operable in France. Another 130+ operate in Belarus; Belgium; Bulgaria; the Czech Republic; Finland; Hungary; the Netherlands; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Ukraine; the UK (Germany, Italy and Lithuania have gone nuke-free).

Six reactors are under unstable Russian control at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia; two more are in Kursk, now a hotly contested war zone. Russia has a further three dozen.

Each could blanket the globe with atomic radiation, as has Chernobyl Unit 4 since it exploded on April 26, 1986.

The still-hot Chernobyl core could explode yet again.

Europe has collectively spent more than $2 billion to cover that core with a giant sarcophagus, the world’s largest movable structure.

On February 14, 2025, it was struck by a military drone.

Putin denies ordering the hit. His supporters say it could have been a “false flag.” But the drone itself was of an Iranian design widely used by the Russians.

On-going maintenance at Chernobyl has been conflicted and highly suspect, especially as impacted by the Russian invasion. After decades of denial, nuke supporters admit that what’s left of Chernobyl #4 could explode again. A definitive 2007 study by the Russian Academy of Sciences put the downwind human death toll at more than 985,000…and rising.

Three melt-downs and four explosions at American-designed reactors at Fukushima have raised the stakes. Caused by an earthquake and tidal wave, their lost cores still send unfathomable quantities of radioactive poisons into the Pacific, with no end in sight.

Both Fukushima and Chernobyl have released far more radioactive cesium and other deadly isotopes than did the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No western insurer will gamble against the likelihood of a new catastrophe caused by natural disasters, faulty designs, operator error, or acts of terror…drone-inflicted or otherwise.

Even without drone attacks, America’s 21st century reactor projects are catastrophic economic failures. Two at VC Summer, South Carolina, are dead, at a cost of $9 billion. Two more at Vogtle, Georgia, came in years behind schedule, billions over budget and completely incapable of competing with renewables. Talks of reviving shut reactors like Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, Michigan’s Palisades and Duane Arnold in Iowa all depend on huge federal subsidies to cover vastly inflated market prices.

Parallel projects in France, Britain and Finland are also very late and far beyond budget.

Soaring costs and lagging production schedules have already killed the first order from NuScale, the first licensed US producer of Small Modular Reactors.

No significant supply from SMRs can be realistically expected in less than a decade. None can be protected from drone attacks.

But the billions SMR (Silly Mythological Rip-offs) backers want to squander on this pre-failed technology will help keep Europe dependent on Putin’s gas.

Germany has shut all its reactors, as have Italy and Lithuania. Putin’s war has destabilized their fossil fuel supply, especially complicating Germany’s transition to 100% renewables, still likely within the next decade.

Corporate hype will not can’t deliver any new nukes, big or small, that can compete with wind, solar, battery backup or increased efficiency, all of whose cost projections continue to plummet.

And no explosion at a wind turbine or solar panel will ever cause a radioactive apocalypse.

But whoever attacked the Chernobyl sarcophagus has made it clear that as long as atomic reactors continue to operate, World War 3 is just a drone strike away.

Harvey “Sluggo” Wasserman wrote SOLARTOPIA: OUR GREEN POWERED EARTH and co-wrote KILLING OUR OWN: THE DISASTER OF AMERICA’S EXPERIENCE WITH ATOMIC RADIATION. Most Mondays at 2pm PT he co-convenes the GREEP Zoom (www.grassrootsep.org)

March 4, 2025 Posted by | safety | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »