nuclear-news

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

The US buried millions of gallons of wartime nuclear waste – Doge cuts could wreck the cleanup

Guardian, Andrew Buncombe in Richland, Washington. 16 May 25

Hanford made the plutonium for US atomic bombs, and its radioactive waste must be dealt with. Enter Elon Musk

Andrew Buncombe in Richland, WashingtonThu 15 May 2025 23.00 AESTShare

In the bustling rural city of Richland, in south-eastern Washington, the signs of a nuclear past are all around.

A small museum explains its role in the Manhattan Project and its “singular mission – [to] develop the world’s first atomic bomb before the enemy might do the same”. The city’s high school sports team is still known as the Bombers, with a logo that consists of the letter R set with a mushroom cloud.

Richland lies just 30 miles from the Hanford nuclear site, a sprawling plant that produced the plutonium for America’s atomic weapons during the second world war – and later the bomb dropped over Nagasaki. Over the decades, thousands of people in the Tri-Cities area of southern Washington worked at the plant, which shuttered in 1989.

Residents have long spearheaded an operation to deal with 56m gallons of nuclear waste left behind in dozens of underground tanks – a cleanup that is expected to cost half a trillion dollars and may not be completed until 2100. The government has called it “one of the largest and most expensive environmental cleanup projects worldwide”.

In recent weeks, what has already been a costly and painstakingly slow process has come under renewed scrutiny, following an exodus of experts from the Department of Energy (DoE) that is overseeing the cleanup being executed by thousands of contract workers.

According to local media, several dozen staff, who reportedly include managers, scientists and safety experts, have taken early retirement or been fired as part of a broader government reduction overseen by Elon Musk and his “department of government efficiency”. The government has refused to provide a specific figure for how many people involved with cleanup efforts have left. The top DoE manager at the Hanford site, Brian Vance, who had many years of experience, resigned at the end of March without giving a reason.

The changes have thrown the communities around the Hanford plant into limbo. And while the Department of Energy has said that only six staff have been fired, and reiterated its commitment to the cleanup, that hasn’t managed to assuage locals’ concerns.

Those raising the alarm include politicians from both parties, environmental activists, and Indigenous communities who have historically owned the land on which the 560 sq mile (1,450 sq km) site sits.

The US senator for Washington Patty Murray said workers were already understaffed, and that cutting further positions was “reckless”.

“There is nothing ‘efficient’ about indiscriminately firing thousands upon thousands of workers in red and blue states whose work is badly needed,” the Democrat said.

Dan Newhouse, the local Republican congressman is similarly concerned. “A strong, well trained federal workforce is essential,” he wrote in a weekly newsletter to constituents.

Concerns have also been raised by some over the difficulty former workers face in making medical compensation claims to the government for everything from cancer to acute pulmonary disease linked to their time at the plant.

Taken together, there is fresh anxiety in a community, where many are still living with the health and environmental effects of Hanford.

Richland, part of the Tri-Cities, was obtained by the army in 1943 to house workers engaged in top-secret efforts to produce plutonium used in the world’s first nuclear explosion – the-so-called “Trinity” device tested near Los Alamos, New Mexico, in 1945. Though the city was returned to the public a decade later, it can still feel like a company town.

To get anywhere near what is known as Hanford’s B-reactor, the world’s first full-scale plutonium production reactor, you need to sign up for an official tour. Yet a view of its grey, single tower, looming from the hillside, can be seen from state route 24, close to the Columbia River.

Those expressing concern about the federal government downsizing include local Indigenous groups who historically owned the land where the site is located and were pushed off it by the government. The Hanford plant area contains the location of several sacred sites, among them Gable Mountain, which were used for ceremonies, and the area of Rattlesnake Mountain, or Lalíik, which has for centuries been used to hunt elk.

The site is also located close to the Yakama Indian Reservation, home to 11,000 people, and the tribe has long pushed to be central to decisions about the cleanup and what it is eventually used for. The tribe recently signed a deal to carry out their first elk hunt in the area for seven decades.

“One of the biggest fears is that without proper manpower, there might not be a very good crew for the cleanup of the property,” says Gerald Lewis, chairman of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. “Without this cleanup, that’s been happening for a number of years, we’re afraid of a nuclear mishap.”

Dr Elizabeth McClure, a health data specialist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, is currently conducting research in the communities around Hanford. She says there is a history of government-led cover-ups over the years at the site, including what is known as “the Green Run”, the intentional release of 8,000 so-called curies of iodine-1 into the atmosphere in 1949……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/15/us-government-nuclear-waste-doge

May 18, 2025 Posted by | employment, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear in decline: EDF accumulates excesses, the State takes the hit and the French pay the bill without flinching.

The Hinkley Point EPR project, a symbol of budgetary excesses and opaque management, raises crucial questions about the future of French nuclear energy and the State’s financial commitment

Gaspard ROUX, 05/09/2025, https://techguru.fr/2025/05/09/nucleaire-en-declin-edf-accumule-les-derives-letat-encaisse-et-les-francais-paient-la-facture-sans-broncher/

IN BRIEF

The Hinkley Point EPR project has become a financial disaster, with a budget that has ballooned to €54 billion.

EDF, now entirely state-owned, bears 85% of the costs , effectively committing public money without sufficient parliamentary control.

The Hinkley Point construction site is a logistical disaster , with working conditions criticized and significant delays to the schedule.

This project raises questions about French 
energy policy and the future of nuclear power, calling for a thorough democratic debate.

This project raises questions about French 
energy policy and the future of nuclear power, calling for a thorough democratic debate.

The National Assembly recently witnessed a heated debate surrounding the Hinkley Point EPR project, a project that has crystallized tensions surrounding the French nuclear industry. This project, initially presented as a technological showcase, has turned into a financial drain for EDF, and by extension, for French taxpayers. As the bill continues to mount, MPs are questioning budgetary overhangs and the lack of parliamentary oversight. Far from being a simple isolated incident, Hinkley Point raises crucial questions about the management of nuclear projects internationally.

When the bill explodes

The European Pressurized Power Plant (EPR) at Hinkley Point was supposed to be the flagship of the French nuclear industry. However, over the years, the project has accumulated delays, technical complications, and cost overruns. Initially estimated at £18 billion in 2016, the budget has now reached €54 billion. This cost explosion is symptomatic of poor management and an underestimation of risks from the outset. Aurélie Trouvé, a member of parliament for La France Insoumise, described the project as a “financial abyss” during a speech in the National Assembly .

The consequences of this financial drift are serious for EDF, a company now entirely owned by the State. 
With 85% of the costs at its own expense, EDF is effectively committing public money without any real parliamentary safeguards . This situation is all the more worrying as it reveals a democratic anomaly: Bercy, the Ministry of Finance, does not have the construction contract, thus depriving MPs of a key element of control. The debate surrounding Hinkley Point is thus going beyond the technical sphere to become a major political issue.

EDF and the taxpayer’s hostage

The full nationalization of EDF in 2023 has redefined the stakes surrounding Hinkley Point. As the sole shareholder, the French state finds itself on the front line when it comes to the project’s budgetary implications. Aurélie Trouvé pointed out that the state was already an 85% shareholder during the initial negotiations in 2015 , making the lack of oversight over such a binding contract incomprehensible.

The withdrawal of Chinese partner CGN, initially planned to co-finance the project, left EDF alone to face the additional costs. In April 2025, Energy Minister Marc Ferracci called on the United Kingdom to assume its financial responsibilities. However, the British silence leaves uncertainty surrounding the future of the financing. This situation calls into question the role of the state in managing major industrial projects and the relevance of committing public money to such risky undertakings.

Symbol of an industrial shipwreck

Beyond the financial issues, Hinkley Point is also the scene of numerous logistical and human setbacks. The construction site, which was initially scheduled to be operational in 2025, has now seen its commissioning postponed to 2029, or even 2031. Working conditions on the site have also been singled out, with workers denouncing appalling conditions , as reported by the Guardian in a Guardian investigation.

The impact on EDF is significant. In 2024, the company had to record a €12.9 billion impairment charge due to the project’s difficulties. Moody’s has also downgraded EDF’s credit profile, highlighting the growing financial pressures on the company . These challenges illustrate the complexity of nuclear investments and the need for rigorous and transparent management.

A turning point for French nuclear energy

The management of Hinkley Point raises questions about the future of nuclear energy in France. As the country prepares to define its energy roadmap for the next ten years, the failure of this international project could influence future choices. Members of Parliament, such as Charles de Courson, are calling for a broader democratic debate on these issues, emphasizing that decisions made today will have lasting consequences for public finances and national energy policy.

This complex picture of Hinkley Point’s challenges and failures calls for a broader reflection on the state’s role in the nuclear sector. How can technological ambitions be reconciled with financial responsibilities? What lessons can be learned to prevent such projects from becoming financial disasters in the future? These essential questions must be answered to ensure a sustainable and responsible energy transition.

May 18, 2025 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

The Balance of Power in the Russo-Ukraine War- Russia is in the driving seat.

NATO WATCH, By Steven Jermy, 12 May 2025.

Political passion for the cause, never strong in ethnically Russian areas, appears now to be eroding amongst the war weary and the victims of Ukrainian Army press gangs.

On this analysis, the balance-of power – on the battlefield and at the negotiating table – overwhelmingly favours Russia. Despite this, European leaders – with reducing support amongst Americans – appear to believe that the losers should dictate the terms of ceasefire or surrender.

Our continued calls for Russia to accept terms that the West is unable to impose will need to cease. We will need to shift our position on the negotiation fundamentals. Russia too has legitimate security interests. Pushing NATO to Russia’s borders whilst wilfully ignoring their interests was always likely to lead to conflict.

Theodore Roosevelt said: “Speak softly but carry a large stick.” European leaders are doing the opposite yet offended when not invited to Russo-Ukraine negotiations. Instead, and from the side lines, Europeans have been insisting that Russia accepts ceasefire conditions that neither they nor the Americans have the political or the military means to impose. So, it’s no surprise that Russians continue patiently to insist on their own conditions, nor that Americans may be slowly coming round to Russia’s position. Yet European leaders are affronted. Why? 

At the most fundamental level, I fear they lack the ability to calculate the balance-of-power, a skill so critical in war. If we Europeans are to play an intelligent part in bringing the Russo-Ukraine war to a close, we must get back to the basics of strategy formulation and calculate the relative balance of power in the Russo-Ukraine War, to in turn allow us to understand the West’s true leverage – or lack of it – over Russia. 

An excellent starting point is the work of Professor John Mearsheimer, particularly given his unusual Russo-Ukraine prescience – that stands in stark contrast to the forecasts of conventional Western commentators. Mearsheimer emphasises economic wealth and population size as fundamental determinants of national power. All other things being equal, larger populations are more powerful than smaller populations, richer ones more powerful than poorer ones.But economic wealth is routinely – and lazily – assessed using GDP figures, a particularly poor way to calculate national military power. The service economy counts for little on the battlefield – in military affairs it is industrial capacity, not economic output, that matters.

There is another equally fundamental factor to add to Mearsheimer’s list – energy. Industrial capacity is critically dependent on reliable supplies of cheap, high quality and plentiful energy – as Europeans have found to their self-inflicted cost – as do military operations. Indeed, in war and operations, combat and logistics are both extremely energy intensive.

[Ed note – Here the author explains the importance of energy, and of geography – the distance from home involves not only the relative passion, determination of the people, but also the burden and cost of transporting munitions over long distances.]

………………………………………………………………………………..Foundationally, Ukraine started the war in a weak position. With NATO’s sustained support from 2014, it had formed a large army, but its industrial capacity was constrained, and it depended on external energy supplies, including Russian oil. Its foundational position is now much worse, after Russia’s deliberate targeting of its industrial and energy infrastructures.

The geopolitical utility of Ukraine’s power is also dissipating. Political passion for the cause, never strong in ethnically Russian areas, appears now to be eroding amongst the war weary and the victims of Ukrainian Army press gangs. Ultranationalists will no doubt stay true to their cause, perhaps to an apocalyptic end, but otherwise it’s easy to envisage a failed popular consensus as the Russian Army rolls westward.

A few may say it is self-evident that power’s foundations and utility be framed in this way. But “Clearly not!”: at least to American and European leaders engaged in the Ukraine War, who are demonstrating – with words and actions – not a scintilla of such understanding.

Bellicosity aside, Europe is foundationally weak. To get anywhere near Cold War industrial capacity levels, Europeans will need to double defence spending to higher than 5% of GDP – in 1986, at the culmination of the Cold War, Britain was spending 6% on defence.

Furthermore, as the world’s largest regional hydrocarbon importer, at 12.8 million barrels 3 per day of oil, Europe’s situation is one of acute energy vulnerability. The geopolitical utility of Europe’s limited military power is also questionable. Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Serbia have always been sceptics, neutral Austria’s position has remained nuanced, but political support amongst others, such as Italy and Spain is weakening. As national resources are redirected, away from constructive capital expenditure or societal goods toward an unwinnable arms race to support a lost war, it’s difficult to imagine matters improving.

Foundationally, the United States is much more powerful than Europe or Ukraine, but this is not a high bar. Industrially, the whole world knows there is a problem – a primary logic for tariffs is reindustrialisation. Energy is a much better, albeit far from perfect, story. Although an exporter of refined hydrocarbons, the United States is a net oil importer, to the tune of nearly 3 million barrels per day.

More immediately pertinent, Ukraine is a long way from the American home, Trump’s electoral base is generally against the war and the prospects of Congressional funding beyond June are uncertain. Inter-administration politics play their part too. Primary responsibility for the United States initial support for the war lies with the Biden administration. But the longer the American hand is kept in the Ukraine mangle, the more likely the Trump administration will take over the blame.

Russia, meanwhile, is demonstrating on the battlefield the analytic value of balance-of power calculation. Industrially mobilised for its ‘special military operation’, Russia’s production of 155mm shells is larger than the US, Europeans and Ukrainians combined. The country is also a hydrocarbons superpower, wholly energy independent and watching on – bemusedly? – as Europeans accelerate their industrial suicide with more boomerang energy sanctions. The geopolitical utility of Russia’s power is also clear. A major land power, it is operating on interior logistics lines that play to its strengths. Politically, Russians believe they are fighting an existential war against an expansionist West. As far back as 2008, Bill Burns’ Nyet means Nyet diplomatic telegram described NATO expansion as a ‘neuralgic’ issue for all Russians, not just Putin. Their cause is Russia’s existence and Putin’s 85% political approval figures reflect the commitment of his people to win.

Implications: Russia is in the driving seat.

So what?

On this analysis, the balance-of power – on the battlefield and at the negotiating table – overwhelmingly favours Russia. Despite this, European leaders – with reducing support amongst Americans – appear to believe that the losers should dictate the terms of ceasefire or surrender. Then protest loudly when neither history nor Putin agree. In war, it is the winners who dictate terms, and this war will largely end on Russia’s terms. Although the spin-doctors will no doubt try, it will be no good trying politically to present this as anything other than a NATO defeat, because that is what it is.

Much better to acknowledge and accept this strategic inevitability, show some European political humility, and begin – finally – to work constructively with Americans and Russians. So that we can, in turn, address the more important immediate question for us all. Whether the war is concluded more slowly, brutally and expensively, on the battlefield? Or more quickly, humanely and cheaply at the negotiating table?

If we recognise the West’s relative lack of power and accept the geopolitical realities on the ground, we Europeans can start to make a positive difference, rather than seeking to cling to our failed political narrative and delay the inevitable.

Our continued calls for Russia to accept terms that the West is unable to impose will need to cease. We will need to shift our position on the negotiation fundamentals. Russia too has legitimate security interests. Pushing NATO to Russia’s borders whilst wilfully ignoring their interests was always likely to lead to conflict. Wars are brought to a close by diplomacy – which means European leaders starting to talk personally to Putin, and foreign ministers Lavrov, and trying better to understand firsthand what they and all Russians want.

This latter question ought not be too difficult – because the Russians have been telling us what they want for at least three years. Fundamentally, they are seeking a security solution that removes the war’s primary cause and leads to long-term peace on the European continent. When there is broad agreement on how this can be achieved, then – and only then – will they be ready to talk about a ceasefire. And start to bring an end to Ukraine’s catastrophic infrastructure destruction, the loss of yet more Russian and Ukrainian lives, and the expenditure of good European monies to follow the bad already squandered.

In 1965, General Andres Beaufre said: ‘In war, the loser deserves to lose because his defeat must be due to failures in thinking either before or during the campaign.’ I agree. It may go against conventional European thinking, but history will soon show that, with Americans, we Europeans bear substantial responsibility for this war and for NATO’s defeat. With competent strategic thinking, we could have avoided the war in the first place. With competent balance-of-power thinking, we could – and should – now help bring it more rapidly to a humane close. https://natowatch.org/default/2025/balance-power-russo-ukraine-war?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

May 18, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

The stakes are high for these important Ukraine-Russia-US talks.

Istanbul 2.0: Know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em.

Here’s hoping no one walks away — or runs — as the stakes today are high for these important Ukraine-Russia-US talks.

Ian Proud, May 15, 2025, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-russia-istanbul-talks/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The biggest achievement of today’s Istanbul talks is that they are even taking place. U.S. engagement will remain vital to getting a peace deal over the line. Russia’s desire for a reset with Washingtonmay keep them on track.

I have a sense of déjà vu as I contemplate these long-overdue peace talks between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul. In April 2022, Ukraine and Russia were close to agreeing a peace treaty, less than two months after war started. However, this came crashing down amid claims that western governments, in particular the United States and the United Kingdom encouraged Ukraine to keep fighting.It’s worth recapping very briefly what was close to having been agreed. By far the best summary of negotiations between both sides was produced by the New York Times in June 2024. Those negotiations ran for almost two months. The talks started with Ukrainian officials being spirited over the border into Belarus on February 29, 2022 while the fighting raged around Kyiv, and eventually led to the now famous talks in Istanbul in March and April.

What has changed since then?

Ukraine will enter the Istanbul talks in a weaker position than it held in 2022.

Western support for Ukraine financially and economically is not as sound as it was then. No big ticket economic aid and assistance has been made available since the G7 agreement of a $50 billion package of loans, in June 2024. While European states scratched together new economic aid to Ukraine in April, this cannot make up for the reduction in US support.

In territorial terms, Russia withdrew from Kyiv as a concession to the first Istanbul talks and lost ground in Kharkiv and in Kherson in late 2022. However, Russia has gone on steadily to gain further territory in the Donbas since the end of 2023. So while both sides have scores on the board, Russia now maintains the military upper hand on the battlefield and that seems unlikely to change. These two factors in particular were behind President Trump’s February assertion that Ukraine has no cards to play.

What has stayed the same?

NATO membership is still off the table

The verified documents shared by the New York Times last June confirmed that Ukraine’s neutrality and non-membership of NATO was the central issue agreed upon in 2022. Ukraine was ready to become a “permanently neutral state” that would never join NATO or allow foreign forces to be based on its soil.

There seems no route for Ukraine to resile from that given its currently weakened negotiating position and President Trump’s stated view that NATO membership for Ukraine is not practical. Although Germany’s new foreign Minister, Johann Wadephul recently repeated the line that Ukraine’s path to NATO is irreversible, most have agreed, privately and publicly, that Ukraine’s path to NATO is a fraught if not impossible one.

Right now, just having the talks is a huge breakthrough

The Istanbul talks would not be happening had the Trump administration not pushed for it so hard. We don’t need to rehash the “did they or didn’t they” debate around why Ukraine abandoned the Istanbul agreement in April 2022. What is clear, is that Ukraine became entrenched, not only in not negotiating with Russia, but in excluding Russia from all discussions on peace in Ukraine from then onward.

Having agreed in principle for Ukraine to accept neutral status Zelensky was soon pushing his own ten point peace plan. This included, among other things, Russia withdrawing its troops to the pre-2014 border, i.e. giving up Crimea and the Donbass and creating a Euro-Atlantic Security Architecture, by which he meant Ukraine joining NATO. Peace summits were organized in various countries that explicitly excluded Russia, culminating in the Switzerland event on June 15, 2024.

At this event, President Zelensky was dug in deeper on resisting any engagement with Russia until a full withdrawal of its troops from Ukraine, which was a completely unrealistic proposal. “Russia can start negotiations with us even tomorrow without waiting for anything – if they leave our legal territories,” he said.

Even after President Trump was elected, European leaders clung to the line that “only Ukraine can decide what peace means.”’ I see no circumstances in which a Kamala Harris presidency would have cajoled President Zelensky to enter into negotiations. The talks wouldn’t be happening unless the Trump administration broke a whole load of Ukrainian and European eggshells to get to this point.

The biggest issue now is territory

Even though he was wrongly derided at the time by mainstream media, Steve Witkoff correctly pointed out in his March interview with Tucker Carlson that the territorial issues in Ukraine will be most intractable. Russia’s decision in October 2022 to formally annex the four oblasts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk changed the calculus. However, Russia does not have full territorial control of any of those oblasts, which are cut through the middle by a hotly contested front line.

Resolving the line of control when the war ends is, by some margin, the most problematic challenge. This will be a hugely sensitive topic, and European allies will shoot down any major concessions to Russia, as they did when the idea surfaced that the U.S.might de jure recognise Russia’s occupation of Crimea.

The most obvious settlement is a de facto recognition of occupation, a Cyprus-style scenario, that does not stand in the way of Ukraine’s future membership of the European Union. Even that will require detailed agreement on issues around demilitarization of the line of control and enforcing any ceasefire.

Sanctions are probably tricky, but also tractable

As I have said before, there is enormous scope to a plan that allows for the immediate lifting of the bulk of zero-impact measures, phasing out the remainder at points agreed to by both sides. The toughest issue remains the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets, mostly held in Belgium. Russia has shown a willingness to concede this funding to support reconstruction in Ukraine, including those parts that Russia occupies.

But there is texture here. Freeing up those funds for reconstruction would immediately remove the source of interest payments that are meeting Ukraine’s obligations on its $50 billion in debt to the G7, agreed to in June 2024. But the more general policy question arises, how much of the freed up funding would be spent in Ukraine itself and how much in Russian-occupied Ukraine, where most of the war damage has occurred? The U.S. must keep the pressure on to ensure the talks stay on track.

A U.S. presence in Istanbul will be vital, to prevent, in particular, Ukraine from bailing on the talks. That’s why sending Steve Witkoff and Keith Kellogg makes sense. The former is trusted by the Russian side while the latter has built relationships in Ukraine. Their presence serves to keep the process moving forward until a deal can be pushed over the line and the fighting can stop.

Bear in mind that the 2022 talks ran for a month and a half and the circumstances have materially changed as I have indicated above. While there has been speculation that President Trump might drop into Istanbul, I am not sure that this is necessary if President Putin doesn’t himself attend. Knowing the Russians, I assess that Putin will want his own “‘meeting moment” with the U.S. President on terms that the Russian side can better choreograph. Indeed, that may be a prize for Russia’s engagement in the process, given its desire for a more comprehensive reset of relations with the U.S.

May 18, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment

New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s Major Nuclear Power Push

What the nuclear industry and nuclear believers in government are calling “advanced” nuclear power plants are, as the Union of Concerned Scientists has found in an extensive report, not improved and no better—”and in some respects significantly worse”—than current nuclear plants.

the nuclear industry now is seeking large amounts of government financial support including in the forms of tax credits and loan guarantees to cover cost overruns.

Karl Grossman, May 14, 2025, https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/05/14/new-york-governor-kathy-hochuls-major-nuclear-power-push/

“Governor [Kathy] Hochul is making a major push to not only build new nuclear plants in New York State but to make N.Y. the center of a nuclear revival in the U.S.,” declared Mark Dunlea, chair of the Green Education and Legal Fund, and long a leader on environmental issues in the state and nationally, in a recent email calling on support to “stop Hochul’s nuclear push.”

Dunlea is author of the book “Putting Out the Planetary Fire: An Introduction to Climate Change and Advocacy.” An Albany Law School graduate, he co-founded both the New York Public Interest Research Group and national PIRG. In an interview last week from his home in Poestenkill in upstate New York, Dunlea charged that Governor Hochul has “bought into nuclear power.”

He said, “She buys the argument that nuclear is carbon-free, avoiding looking at the life cycle of nuclear and its carbon footprint,” which includes, he noted, significant emissions of carbon in uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication and at other points. “The nuclear industry has been lobbying her to go along with it, and she has,” he said.

Hochul has also become involved in promoting nuclear power nationally.

The Clean Air Task Force, based in Sunnyside in Queens, New York, which advocates nuclear power, issued a press release in February stating: “The National Association of State Energy officials announced a multi-state initiative to accelerate advanced nuclear energy projects. The initiative was first previewed by Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York last month and will be co-chaired by New York.”

The heading of the release: “New York leads multi-state consortium to drive nuclear energy deployment …”

Tim Judson, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), based in Mount Rainier, Maryland, and formerly of Syracuse, New York, pointed out in an interview that Hochul made nuclear power “a specific priority in her State of the State speech” in January.

Hochul in the speech declared: “The economy of the future: microchips fabs [fabrication plants], data centers and the supercomputers that power AI need tremendous amounts of energy. To support these industries, we’ve already started developing an advanced nuclear strategy. This is a good investment. Artificial Intelligence alone is projected to drive $320 billion of economic growth in our state by 2038.”

What the nuclear industry and nuclear believers in government are calling “advanced” nuclear power plants are, as the Union of Concerned Scientists has found in an extensive report, not improved and no better—”and in some respects significantly worse”—than current nuclear plants. The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based organization has detailed this in an article headlined: “Report Finds That ‘Advanced’ Nuclear Reactor Designs Are No Better Than Current Reactors—and Some Are Worse.”

Hochul is a Democrat. But also, said Judson, the “New York Republican Party has been rabidly pro-nuclear.” In a time of extreme partisan polarity, there is a “bipartisan consensus among the political elite in favor of nuclear power,” and thus is one thing in government for which “there are bipartisan votes.”

As the Syracuse.com website has reported: “Fort Drum, the U.S. Army base outside Watertown, could become the first New York site to try advanced nuclear power technology if the Army goes along with pleas from congressional representatives. U.S. Reps. Elise Stefanik and Claudia Tenney, both upstate Republicans, issued a joint letter October 25 urging the Army to put Fort Drum first in line for one of the small modular nuclear reactors that President Joe Biden and Department of Defense officials are promoting as a clean source of resilient energy.”

Stefanik is a Republican front-runner to challenge Hochul in election for governor in 2026. Democrat Biden has supported nuclear power.

Hochul’s predecessor as New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, also a Democrat, now seeking to be the Democratic candidate for New York City mayor in the 2025 election, has a mixed record on nuclear power.

As governor Cuomo was instrumental in closing down in 2021 the two Indian Point nuclear power plants 26 miles north of New York City, but in 2016 he engineered a $7.6 billion bail-out to allow four aged nuclear plants in upstate New York to continue to operate. Their owners then deemed them uneconomical to continue to operate.

The plants—Fitzpatrick, Nine Mile Point 1 and 2, and Ginna—are now owned by Constellation Energy, the largest nuclear power plant operator in the United States.

The $7.6 billion bail-out is being paid for over a 12-year period as a surcharge on electric bills of all residential and industrial customers in New York State.

So far, Dunlea said, Hochul has been focusing on upstate New York for new nuclear development, particularly targeting areas where nuclear plants are now located, rather than, “at the moment,” downstate.

For decades, a battle raged that stopped the plan of the Long Island Lighting Company to build a large collection of nuclear power plants—seven to 11 nuclear plants—downstate, on Long Island, the 120-mile island east of Manhattan.

If there is again a plan for placement of nuclear power plants on Long Island, said Dunlea, “hopefully, Long Islanders would stand up and beat it back.”

Grassroots citizen action was a key in the decades long fight to block to the scheme to, in the parlance of promoters of it at the time, turn Long Island into a “nuclear park.” The only plant built was Shoreham 1 which was stopped from going into commercial operation.

The October Syracuse.com piece said: “Gov. Kathy Hochul has expressed an interest in exploring the potential for new nuclear power in New York” highlighted by her having “hosted an energy summit last month [September 2024] in Syracuse that focused heavily on nuclear power.”

Judson, of NIRS, said the nuclear industry now is seeking large amounts of government financial support including in the forms of tax credits and loan guarantees to cover cost overruns.

Laura Shindell, New York State director of the Washington-headquartered organization Food & Water Watch, has scored in a piece in the Times Union newspaper of Albany what she terms “Governor Hochul’s nuclear embrace” and said Hochul should commit to “real climate and affordable energy solutions.” Shindell’s piece was headlined, “Commentary: No place for nuclear in New York’s energy plants.” Its subhead: “Nuclear power is a dirty, dangerous, expensive distraction to the essential work of transitioning to clean energy.”

New York State’s emphasis on nuclear power under Hochul has been recognized by World Nuclear News, a publication of the World Nuclear Association, a London-based group that describes itself as an “international organization that promotes nuclear power.”

A January article was headlined “New York State looks to advanced nuclear.”

It began: “As New York Governor Kathy Hochul announces a master plan for advanced nuclear development,” the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, NYSERDA “has joined Constellation [Energy] on a grant proposal to help it pursue an early site permit for advanced nuclear reactors at its Nine Mile Point Clean Energy Center.” That’s the site of the Nine Mile Point 1 and 2 nuclear power plants.

Anne Rabe, volunteer coordinator of the group Don’t Waste New York, charged in an interview that Hochul “is recklessly and deliberately telling NYSERDA to pursue advanced reactors.” A resident of Castleton-on-Hudson in upstate New York, she said “the nuclear industry for years has worked to lay the groundwork for this.”

Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and is the author of the book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space’s Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet, and the Beyond Nuclear handbook, The U.S. Space Force and the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear war in space. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.

May 18, 2025 Posted by | spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

Uranium enrichment to 93% is Iran’s right under Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, lawmakers tell UN watchdog

 Iran International, May 14, 2025, 

Iran’s parliament warned on Wednesday that any perceived infringement by the UN’s nuclear watchdog on its nuclear rights, including the right to enrich uranium up to 93%, would be met with backlash.

n a statement by lawmakers addressed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the group said that Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — including nuclear research, development, and peaceful use — are non-negotiable and fully verifiable under the IAEA safeguards.

Read by presidium member Ahmad Naderi during a public session, the statement said, “According to Article 4 of the Treaty on the NPT, the great nation of Iran is entitled to three inalienable rights: first, the right to research and development; second, the right to produce; and third, the right to utilize nuclear energy.”

The lawmakers argued that in accordance with this article of the NPT, “the Islamic Republic faces no limitations in nuclear research and development and can proceed with enrichment up to 93% based on its scientific, medical, and industrial needs.”

The lawmakers also criticized the IAEA for what they called four decades of obstructing Iran’s peaceful nuclear development, and for relying on what they called politically motivated intelligence, particularly from Iran’s archenemy, Israel.

Last month, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said in an interview with Le Monde that Iran was “not far” from being able to produce an atomic bomb, describing the country’s progress as “pieces of a puzzle” that could potentially come together.

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and remains under IAEA monitoring.

Also on Wednesday, Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf condemned US President Donald Trump’s recent remarks in Riyadh in which he referenced Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program and Tehran’s support for military proxies, calling them “delusional” and blaming US policies for instability in West Asia…………………………………………………………………………………..

“Iran is not a warmonger, but we will never surrender. We are brothers with our neighbors and reject US efforts to stir division to boost its arms sales,” he said. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202505143023

May 18, 2025 Posted by | Iran, Uranium | Leave a comment

Trump, Planes and the Arabian Gulf Tour

May 16, 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/trump-planes-and-the-arabian-gulf-tour/

They seemed made for each other. A former reality television star, with dubious real estate credentials, a freakish alienation from the truth, and the various leaders of the Gulf States, who never found truthful assessments that worthwhile anyway. This was certainly no time to be frugal and modest. Many a country might be dealing with soaring prices, inaccessible housing markets, and the cost of eggs, but nothing would be spared in spoiling US President Donald Trump with overpriced kitsch and exotica. Here was the MAGA brand in full flower.

With crude indulgence, Saudi Arabia’s putative leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, pampered and spoiled the US president with hospitality and a spray of undertakings and agreements during the first part of his Arabian Gulf tour. Six US-made F-15 fighters piloted by the Saudis escorted Air Force One as it approached Riyadh on May 13. There was the coffee ceremony within the royal terminal in the airport, a limousine flanked by white Arabian horses, and a decorative honour guard equipped with golden swords.  

This was a time for luxury and boundless bad taste, not bleeding hearts and bleating consciences. Memories of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, murdered in October 2018 on orders by the crown prince, could be silenced if not expunged altogether. As for climate change, what of it? On golden chairs in the royal place, the Crown Prince and US President could bask in each other’s triumphal, emetic glow. Trump exclaimed that “we like each other a lot.” In a speech, he also uttered words of music to the royal: no foreign leader should be “giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs.”

An extravagant luncheon that followed featured a veritable Who’s Who of American corporatocracy, among them Stephen Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group, Jane Fraser of Citicorp, Ruth Porat of Google, and Alex Karp of Palantir.

The value of the agreements reached between Riyadh and Washington approximate to US$600 billion, if one is to trust the anomalous “fact sheets” released by the White House. The nature of these commitments was not exactly clear, though they promise to cover energy security, defence, technology and access to critical minerals. Terms with little clarity (“global infrastructure”, for instance) were thrown around. Naturally, Trump will not be outdone in any deal, insisting that this was all part of the America First Trade and Investment Policy that is placing “the American economy, the American worker, and our national security first.”  

A few examples were mentioned, though these figure as ongoing commitments: the plans of Saudi Arabia’s DataVolt to invest US$20 billion in US data centres and energy infrastructure; the promise by Google, DataVolt, Oracle, Salesforce, AMD and Uber to invest US$80 billion in “cutting-edge transformative technologies in both countries.” The inevitable defence sales agreement was also praised, one hailed as the largest in history. Worth almost US$142 billion, it will involve over a dozen US defence firms supplying the Kingdom with equipment and technology in air force and space capabilities, air and missile defence, maritime and coastal security, border security and land forces and improved information and communication systems.

This was merely the start of the Trump Splash Show. Onward to Qatar, where another ceremonial escort of F-15 fighter planes greeted the president. Clearly, the ruling Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, was not going to be outdone by his Saudi counterparts. For a change, however, the president’s motorcade travelling from Doha airport to Amiri Diwan was greeted by a cavalry of mounted camels. “I haven’t seen camels like that in a long time,” fluted the impressed leader. “And really, we appreciate it very much.” But showing that imperishable tradition can exist alongside technological progress, red Tesla Cybertrucks also featured in the motorcade.  This was a sweet gesture, given that Elon Musk’s company has an inventory of unsold Cybertrucks worth US$800 billion languishing in dealerships.

With the welcome indulgence concluded, the serious discussions began. These were primarily focused on aviation, defence and energy priorities. Of note was a contract with Doha for 210 Boeing-made 787 Dreamliners and 777x aircraft worth US$96 billion. The US plane maker has been struggling of late, bedevilled by mishaps and questions about the quality of its manufacture. But glossy salvations are possible in the garden of MAGA make believe. “Congratulations to Boeing,” cooed Trump. “Get those planes out there.”  

The contract was part of a number of economic commitments from Qatar initially claimed by the White House to be worth a staggering US$1.2 trillion. As mathematics is not the strong suit of the Trump administration, the same announcement also qualifies the over trillion dollar boast by announcing “economic deals totalling more than $243.5 billion between the United States and Qatar, including an historic sale of Boeing aircraft and GE Aerospace engines to Qatar Airways.” Also included is an almost US$2 billion agreement allowing Qatar to acquire the MQ-9B remotely piloted aircraft system from General Atomics, and a US$1 billion agreement for Doha’s purchase of Raytheon’s small unmanned aircraft integrated defeat system.

In a shameless effort to outdo Riyadh, the Qatari royal family threw in a luxury 747 plane worth $400 million for the US Department of Defense, intended for Trump’s use as a temporary substitute Air Force One. Reported as being a “palace in the sky”, the president sees it as a gift of infinite, irrefutable generosity. “It’s a great gesture from Qatar,” he reasoned. “I appreciate it very much. I would never be one to turn down that kind of offer.”  

As with his keenness to avoid anything that might ruffle feathers, or disturb restful camels, this was not a trip for presidential agitation. He was far away from irritating European allies. Here was Qatar, previously accused by Trump of being a sponsor of terrorism, rehabilitated in golden glory. Forget the security implications and brazen corruption inherent in such a move: all the parties concerned could gloat without consequential censure.

May 18, 2025 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, politics international | Leave a comment

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) secures contribution from France to help restore site safety at Chornobyl

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has secured a
€10 million contribution to the International Chernobyl Cooperation
Account (ICCA) from France, reaffirming its unwavering support for
international decommissioning and nuclear remediation efforts at the
Chornobyl nuclear power plant and across Ukraine.

 EBRD 14th May 2025,
https://www.ebrd.com/home/news-and-events/news/2025/chornobyl-france.html

May 18, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment