nuclear-news

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

Top nuke officials admit staffing challenges after DOGE layoffs, hiring freeze

Testifying to a Senate committee, National Nuclear Security Administration leaders acknowledged staffing woes after DOGE-led reductions.

Davis Winkie. USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/21/nuclear-weapons-leaders-describe-workforce-woes-doge/83770727007/

Key Points

  • During May 20 testimony, top acting officials from the National Nuclear Security Administration acknowledged the risk and impact of workforce vacancies caused by Elon Musk’s DOGE.
  • A USA TODAY investigation published May 18 detailed the potential impact of endemic federal staffing shortages at NNSA recently exacerbated by the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal workforce.

WASHINGTON − Top leaders of the agency responsible for the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile admitted to DOGE-related staffing challenges at a Senate hearing.

Asked by Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, if a hiring freeze, resignations and attrition could bring “some pretty important vacancies,” acting National Nuclear Security Agency defense programs head David Hoagland said, “That’s very true.” Hoagland said at the May 20 hearing that his office had “shifted people around” to meet “critical needs.”

Hundreds of NNSA staff were fired by Elon Musk‘s Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year, amid a $1.7 trillion nuclear weapons upgrade, in a chaotic wave of layoffs. Most were later rehired. Other critical staffers agreed to leave their jobs under DOGE’s “fork in the road” resignation offer.

King said NNSA claims that staffing shortages hadn’t placed agency’s mission at short term risk “strikes me as implausible.”

The NNSA struggled with staffing and talent pipeline issues for decades before the new Trump administration, a recent USA TODAY investigation found. Then Musk launched efforts to reduce the federal workforce, which further destabilized the NNSA workforce, experts said.

The agency currently faces a near-total hiring freeze and lost more than 130 of its 2,000 federal employees to the DOGE deferred resignation program. More than 300 more employees were fired and reinstated in February damaging morale.

NNSA’s acting principal deputy administrator, James McConnell, said told senators on a subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee the agency could handle the losses “in the short term,” but he said the NNSA needs to “make sure that our resources are adequate.”

Experts told USA TODAY sustained staffing shortages could cause further delays and cost overruns on the agency’s beleaguered portions of the nation’s broader $1.7 trillion nuclear arsenal modernization effort. USA TODAY documented billions of dollars in overruns, as well as safety issues, at NNSA facilities that were attributed to staffing shortages.

Marv Adams, Hoagland’s Senate-confirmed predecessor atop NNSA’s defense programs, said in an interview that during his tenure, “our federal [warhead] program offices struggled to keep up and not get behind because of understaffing.”

The agency’s field offices faced similar strain, according to David Bowman, a retired civil servant and former manager of the NNSA’s Nevada Field Office. From 2020 until his retirement in the fall of 2024, Bowman oversaw operations at the expansive Nevada National Security Site.

NNSA field offices must review and approve much of the work the agency’s massive contractor workforce does on the nuclear arsenal, as well as safety management plans. In an interview, Bowman said such review “requires … technical experts who are feds.”

“If the field offices or the safety experts are short staffed, the work is going to back up,” he said.

Bowman described finding qualified staff for his far-flung office northwest of Las Vegas as “the big challenge we had.”

Contributing: Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY

May 24, 2025 Posted by | employment, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons woes: Understaffed nuke agency hit by DOGE and safety worries

The consequences of DOGE’s disruptions at the National Nuclear Security Administration could be far-reaching, experts say.

Davis Winkie and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY, 18 May 25

  • For decades, the NNSA has struggled with federal staffing shortages that have contributed to safety issues as well as delays and cost overruns on major projects.
  • Experts fear that the Trump administration’s moves to reduce the federal workforce may have destabilized the highly specialized federal workforce at the National Nuclear Security Administration.
  • USA TODAY reviewed decades of government watchdog reports, safety documents, and congressional testimony on U.S. nuclear weapons.

In 2021, after a pair of plutonium-handling gloves had broken for the third time at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, contaminating three workers, and after the second accidental flood, investigators from the National Nuclear Security Administration found a common thread in a plague of safety incidents: the contractor running the New Mexico lab lacked “sufficient staff.”

So did the NNSA.

The agency, whose fewer than 1,900 federal employees oversee the more than 60,000 contractors who build and maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal, has struggled to fill crucial safety roles. Only 21% of the agency’s facility representative positions – the government’s eyes and ears in contractor-run buildings – at Los Alamos were filled with qualified personnel as of May 2022.

Now, President Donald Trump’s administration has thrown the NNSA into chaos, threatening hard-won staffing progress amid a trillion-dollar nuclear weapons upgrade. Desperately needed nuclear experts are wary of joining thanks to chaotic job cuts by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, experts say.

The disruption of NNSA’s chronically understaffed safety workforce is “a recipe for disaster,” said Joyce Connery, former head of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

Los Alamos is not the only facility with staffing shortages in crucial safety roles.

As of May 2022, less than one-third of facility representative roles at NNSA’s Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the Pantex plant near Amarillo, Texas were held by fully qualified employees, according to a USA TODAY review of nuclear safety records.

At Pantex, where technicians assemble and disassemble nuclear weapons, only a quarter of safety system oversight positions had fully qualified hires, and only 57% of those safety positions had qualified employees at Y-12.

Nuclear weapons workers don’t grow on trees, nor do the federal experts who oversee them. Many of the jobs require advanced degrees, and new hires often need years of on-the-job training. Security clearance requirements limit the most sensitive jobs to U.S. citizens.

America’s nuclear talent crisis isn’t new, but its consequences have grown as tens of billions of dollars pour into the NNSA annually in a broader $1.7 trillion plan to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons.

Congress ordered the cramped, aging plutonium facility at Los Alamos – called PF-4 – to begin mass production of plutonium pits, a critical component at the heart of nuclear warheads, for the first time in more than a decade.

Enter Elon Musk and DOGE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What’s at stake

The struggle for staff has been NNSA’s Achilles heel for decades – and the stakes have only grown.

But despite efforts to develop talent, watchdogs said in February of this year the NNSA was “understaffed” and struggling to execute key oversight requirements.

Then came DOGE…………………………………………………………………………………….

Connery fears the strain and staffing problems could combine to disastrous effect.

“When you take an inexperienced or an understaffed workforce and you combine it with old facilities and a push to get things done – that is a recipe for disaster,” Connery said. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/18/nuclear-weapons-woes-nuke-agency-hit-by-doge-and-safety-worries/83621978007/

May 21, 2025 Posted by | employment, safety, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Airlines update nuclear war insurance plans as escalation threats grow.

COMMENT. The airlines are insane to want to keep flying in the case of a “small” nuclear war.

Airlines are taking steps to ensure that they can keep flying even after the outbreak of a nuclear war.

Jets could continue to fly following an atomic blast under special insurance policies being drawn up to address the possibility of conflicts escalating in Ukraine and Kashmir.
Current policies that date back to the 1950s would force the grounding of all civil aircraft worldwide in the event of a single nuclear detonation, assuming that this would lead to the outbreak of a third world war.

However, with the deployment of nuclear weapons now regarded as more likely to involve so-called tactical warheads used in a limited role on the battlefield, the insurance industry has developed plans to allow flights to continue in regions removed from conflict zones.

Gallagher, the world’s largest aviation insurance broker, began working on the scheme when Vladimir Putin threatened to deploy Russia’s atomic weapons against Ukraine in 2022.
Its plans have been given fresh impetus by the recent clash between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, where hostilities reached a level not seen for decades.

Nigel Weyman, senior partner at Gallagher, said the Ukraine conflict had revived interest in nuclear-related insurance policies.

He said: “Back when the wording was drawn up, it was assumed that any hostile detonation meant that it would all be over, Armageddon. But what they didn’t have in those days was tactical nuclear weapons that vary in size and impact and which are, ultimately, very usable.”
The latest generation of the American B61 air-launched gravity bomb carries a nuclear warhead with a yield as low as 0.3 kilotons, for example.

That compares with 15 kilotons for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, and 100 kilotons for a single Trident II missile warhead.

While Britain retired its last tactical nuclear weapons in 1998, Russia is believed to have almost 2000. North Korea unveiled what it claimed was a tactical weapon in 2023, while Pakistan’s Nasr missile can also carry a battlefield nuclear warhead.

Weyman said, “Why should Air New Zealand, for example, be grounded in the event of a nuclear detonation in Europe that was quite minor, albeit not for the people near it?”

“Airlines find workarounds for whatever challenges they face, safe corridors, minimum heights so that ground-to-air missiles can’t reach them.

“Volcanic ash clouds affect big areas, but the world keeps flying. Yet a few words on an insurance policy can ground every jet there is.”

Threat management
The broker has come up with a plan that would see a select number of insurers evaluate where airlines should be permitted to fly after a nuclear detonation, aided by analysis from security experts at risk-management specialists Osprey Flight Solutions.
The 15-strong group, which includes Allianz, the world’s largest insurer, would meet within four hours of a detonation and evaluate the threat to airlines on a country-by-country basis.
The plan would provide each carrier with $US1 billion ($1.56 billion) per plane of war cover for passengers and third parties, compared with $US2 billion or more under existing policies.

Weyman said the cost of the scheme would amount to less than the price of a cup of coffee per passenger, if ever triggered, something “easily passed on in ticket prices”.

Airlines spent about $3.1 billion on insurance premiums last year to cover slightly over 4 billion passenger journeys, indicating a current cost of around 33 cents per customer.

About 100 airlines have so far signed up to the plan, out of the 500 or so worldwide. About 60 in Europe have joined, though low-cost operators are proving reluctant, Weyman said.

Airlines could yet be grounded by other insurance stipulations, including a “five powers war clause” that terminates cover in the event of a military clash between any of the UK, US, France, Russia and China.

That could be invoked in the event of any British or French troops sent to Ukraine being fired on, according to some industry experts.

May 19, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, safety | Leave a comment

French nuclear company Orano explores sale of Niger uranium assets

 French state-owned nuclear fuel company Orano is exploring the sale of its
uranium assets in Niger after the breakdown of its relationship with the
west African country’s military rulers. Orano operates three mines in
Niger in a joint venture with the Russian-backed government that seized
power in a coup two years ago, but was stripped of its rights over one
project in June and forced to stop work at another soon after because of
financial pressures. It said at the time that Niger had blocked uranium
exports and halted payments of its obligations as joint venture partners
since the 2023 coup that toppled the country’s pro-western government.
This has forced Orano to look at a possible sale of its Niger assets,
according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

 FT 18th May 2025
https://www.ft.com/content/e0d5c62f-3794-4148-95e2-31deecbc7717

May 19, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Niger | Leave a comment

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

What does the Cour des Comptes Report mean for Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C?

29 Apr 2025, Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5195981

Abstract

The January 2024 report by France’s Cour des Comptes on the future of the European Pressurised Reactor sheds light on the prospects for the UK’s Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C projects. It shows that the main contractor and a key financier, the state-owned Electricité de France does not have the human and financial resources to complete these projects without compromising its ability to fulfil its primary obligations in France.

I argue that the Hinkley Point C project, under construction since 2016, should be scaled back to no more than one rather than two reactors. The Sizewell C project, yet to reach a final investment decision despite the expenditure of at least £3.7bn of UK taxpayer money, should be abandoned. 

May 17, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, safety | Leave a comment

Conflicts of interest in the Trump group’s push to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia.

May 12, 2025 Posted by | marketing, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Ontario’s Darlington SMR project to cost nearly $21-billion, significantly higher than expected.

Matthew McClearn, May 8, 2025

The Ontario government approved Ontario Power Generation’s plan to spend $7.7-billion to construct the first small modular reactor in a G7 country – a price far greater than independent observers deem necessary to spark widespread adoption.

On Thursday, the government announced its wholly-owned utility can spend $6.1-billion to build the first BWRX-300 reactor adjacent to OPG’s existing Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. In addition, it can spend another $1.6-billion on common infrastructure such as administrative buildings and cooling water tunnels the new reactor will share with three additional BWRX-300s to be built later.

Those remaining units are expected to cost substantially less: all told, the 1,200-megawatt plant‘s estimated cost is $20.9-billion, expressed in 2024 dollars and including interest charges and contingencies.

Those costs are far higher than what independent observers argue are necessary for widespread adoption of SMRs. For comparison, a recently-completed 377-megawatt natural gas-fired power station in Saskatchewan cost $825-million.

High costs, overruns and delays contributed to the decline of nuclear power in advanced economies such as the U.S., France and Canada, all former leaders in reactor construction. The global reactor fleet‘s collective generating capacity has been largely flat since the 1990s, around the same time Canada’s newest reactor (Darlington Unit 4) was built. Most reactors under construction today are of Chinese and Russian design. Only one reactor is currently under construction in the Western hemisphere, and two in Western Europe, according to Mycle Schneider Consulting.

OPG’s project, known as the Darlington New Nuclear Project, is being watched closely by utilities around the world. The BWRX-300 is a candidate for proposed projects in the U.S., U.K., Poland, Estonia and elsewhere.

Thursday’s announcement marks a significant milestone for major capital projects. Proposals and memorandums of understanding for nuclear power plants abound, but very few advance to this stage.

Construction was scheduled to wrap up in 2028, but OPG has pushed that back by one year. It attributed the delay to a construction licence the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission granted in April, later than expected; the scheduled months between breaking ground and completion remain unchanged.

OPG’s costs are several times greater than Wilmington, N.C.-based GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy originally promised. Early in the BWRX-300’s development, GE Hitachi emphasized it was designing to achieve a specific cost: US$700-million per reactor, or US$2.25-million per megawatt, low enough to compete with natural gas.

OPG said the government is not funding the project: the utility will pay for it using its own funds, including cash on hand, cash flow from generating stations and debt.

Ontarians will pay OPG back over time through their electricity bills.

Officials estimated the average cost of power from the four reactors at 14.9 cents per kilowatt hour, contingent on the federal government providing investment tax credits.

The IESO said an alternative would be to build between 5,600 and 8,900 megawatts of wind and solar generators supported by batteries. Their capacity would need to be far greater, it reasoned, to account for the intermittent nature of wind and sunlight, and they would also require far more new transmission infrastructure. The IESO estimated the costs for all that at between 13.5 and 18.4 cents per kilowatt hour. Building the BWRX-300, the IESO concluded, is the lower-risk option.

Clean Prosperity, a Canadian climate policy think tank, said in a report last year that the final construction cost of the first BWRX-300 will be influential in determining how many other utilities will be interested in building their own. A cost of $3-billion, or $10.16-million per megawatt, would encourage rapid adoption of SMRs – a level some countries have achieved.

“Russia, India, South Korea and Japan have had average construction costs of $3.4-million to $4.6-million per megawatt since 2000,” the report said.

“In contrast, France and the U.S. built reactors for $12.5-million and $17.5-million per megawatt, respectively, over the same time frame.”

In a January report, the International Energy Agency said costs must come down; SMRs need to reach US$4.5-million per megawatt by 2040 to enjoy rapid uptake, far less than OPG’s estimated costs.

OPG said it‘s confident it will stick to its schedule and budget. The utility pointed to its ongoing $12.8-billion refurbishment of Darlington’s existing four reactors, a complex project it said remains on schedule and on-budget and is scheduled to wrap up next year. But if overruns do occur on the Darlington SMR, OPG and its partners (which include GE Hitachi, architect/engineer AtkinsRéalis and constructor Aecon) will share those costs.

The utility added that 80 per cent of its spending on the project will go to Ontario companies; just 5 per cent goes to U.S. companies, primarily GE Hitachi for its design and development work.

Last fall, the Ford government passed legislation dubbed the Affordable Energy Act, which committed to prioritizing nuclear power to meet future increases in electricity demand. The province plans up to 4,800 megawatts of new nuclear capacity at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, and as much as 10,000 megawatts at Wesleyville, a proposed new OPG station in Port Hope.

May 11, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | 1 Comment

Google agrees to fund the development of three new nuclear sites

 Nuclear developer Elementl Power said Wednesday it’s signed an agreement
with Google. to develop three sites for advanced reactors. It’s the
latest example of tech giants teaming up with the nuclear industry in an
effort to meet the vast energy needs of data centers. Google will commit
early-stage development capital to the three projects, although the exact
terms of the deal remain private. Each site will generate at least 600
megawatts of power capacity, and Google will have the option to buy the
power once the sites are up and running. The proposed locations remain
private, but Elementl said Google’s funding will be used for things like
site permitting, securing interconnection rights to the transmission
system, contract negotiations and other early-stage matters.

 CNBC 7th May 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/07/google-agrees-to-fund-the-development-of-three-new-nuclear-sites.html

May 11, 2025 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

Ontario signs up for a huge financial and security risk

Ontario Clean Air Alliance 9 May 25

1 Yesterday the Ford Government announced it is rolling the dice on building four untested, first-of-their-kind nuclear reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Station. 

It’s an expensive and risky roll. The government claims these four reactors will cost $20.9 billion and will take 10 years to build. A much more realistic cost estimate based on real-world experience says these reactors will cost at least $27 billion. 

Of course, these American-designed reactors will also depend on enriched uranium imports from the United States. So much for sending Donald Trump a message and protecting Canada’s national security.

Today we released a report which compares the costs of these never-before-built reactors with much lower cost, safer and more climate effective options such as solar and wind power.

It finds that power from these new nuclear reactors will cost up to 8 times more than power from onshore wind turbines; almost 6 times more than power from solar farms; and up to 2.7 times more than Great Lakes offshore wind power.

That’s according to the highly respected Energy Futures Group, not the nuclear insiders the government is depending on for its estimates. While they used data from Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), the Energy Futures Group made realistic estimates about the capital costs of new reactors and their performance based on real-world data that the IESO chose to pass over in favour of assumptions with little grounding in reality.

Why would we spend many, many times more for power from risky reactors rather than doing what the rest of the world is doing and fully develop low-cost renewable power? Remember, Ontario has not contracted for a single kilowatt-hour of new wind and solar electricity during that last 7 years while use of solar, in particular, has skyrocketed in much of the rest of the world.

The Ford Government doesn’t want to talk about the real costs and alternatives to its nuclear fantasy plans. But we can’t afford to live in a fantasy world, especially now. We need to get real about the best way to control energy costs and to protect our province. Splashing out on unproven nuclear reactors is not a good choice when we can save billions with reliable, already available and proven renewable options.

See our report for all the fine print on the Energy Futures Group’s calculations. Then tell the Ford Government that it’s time to get real and invest in our lowest cost power options, not expensive nuclear pipe dreams.

May 10, 2025 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

EDF seeks joint financing for UK projects

April 30, 2025, https://www.neimagazine.com/news/edf-seeks-joint-financing-for-uk-projects/?cf-view&cf-closed

DF is seeking to consolidate financing for the Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C NPPs under construction in the UK. French Energy Minister Marc Ferracci told the Financial Times that they should be treated as one financial venture in negotiations. He said he had discussed the issue with UK Energy Minister Ed Miliband on the sidelines of a conference in London.

“France and EDF are very committed to deliver the projects but we have to find a way to accelerate them, and we have to find a way to consolidate the financial schemes of both projects,” he said.

Both projects started out with equity stakes from Chinese state-owned nuclear development corporations but the UK government cancelled the arrangements because of “security issues”. The UK government partly replaced the funding and is seeking support from institutional investors.

Ferracci denied that the French government intended to use Sizewell as “leverage” against the financial troubles at Hinkley. “It is not a discussion about leverage, it is a discussion between friends and allies. . . So there is a way through, and I hope we will be able to find it in the next few months.”

He also called for a global solution that would result in a deal that benefitted EDF’s returns across both schemes. “It is a good approach to have a global approach to our relationship,” Ferracci said, adding more “grid connections between France and the UK” could come into the negotiations.

Meanwhile, workers at the Hinkley Point C NPP construction site are complaining about a significant rat infestation, raising health and safety concerns. In early April, the Unite and GMB trade unions at Hinkley Point C told EDF that the facility was overrun with rats. The unions said immediate action was needed as the rodents were “everywhere”. In recent months, workers have also complained about poor working conditions and low pay. In addition, hundreds of project staff went on strike in November over the inadequate security access to the site.

May 4, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, France, UK | Leave a comment

Kingston Fossil Plant and Oakridge Nuclear Facility – an unholy alliance of radioactive pollution,

While no one was killed by the 2008 coal ash spill itself, dozens of workers have died from illnesses that emerged during or after the cleanup. Hundreds of other workers are sick from respiratory, cardiac, neurological, and blood disorders, as well as cancers.

The apparent mixing of fossil fuel and nuclear waste streams underscores the long relationship between the Kingston and Oak Ridge facilities.

Between the 1950s and 1980s, so much cesium-137 and mercury was released into the Clinch from Oak Ridge that the Department of Energy, or DOE, said that the river and its feeder stream “served as pipelines for contaminants.” Yet TVA and its contractors, with the blessing of both state and federal regulators, classified all 4 million tons of material they recovered from the Emory as “non-hazardous.”

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency analysis confirms that the ash that was left in the river was “found to be commingled with contamination from the Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation site.

For nearly a century, both Oak Ridge and TVA treated their waste with less care than most families treat household garbage. It was often dumped into unlined, and sometimes unmarked, pits that continue to leak into waterways. For decades, Oak Ridge served as the Southeast’s burial ground for nuclear waste. It was stored within watersheds and floodplains that fed the Clinch River. But exactly where and how this waste was buried has been notoriously hard to track.

A Legacy of Contamination, How the Kingston coal ash spill unearthed a nuclear nightmare, Grist By Austyn Gaffney on Dec 15, 2020  This story was published in partnership with the Daily Yonder.

In 2009, App Thacker was hired to run a dredge along the Emory River in eastern Tennessee. Picture anindustrialized fleet modeled after Huck Finn’s raft: Nicknamed Adelyn, Kylee, and Shirley, the blue, flat-bottomed boats used mechanical arms called cutterheads to dig up riverbeds and siphon the excavated sediment into shoreline canals. The largest dredge, a two-story behemoth called the Sandpiper, had pipes wide enough to swallow a push lawnmower. Smaller dredges like Thacker’s scuttled behind it, scooping up excess muck like fish skimming a whale’s corpse. They all had the same directive: Remove the thick grey sludge that clogged the Emory.

The sludge was coal ash, the waste leftover when coal is burned to generate electricity. Twelve years ago this month, more than a billion gallons of wet ash burst from a holding pond monitored by the region’s major utility, the Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA. Thacker, a heavy machinery operator with Knoxville’s 917 union, became one of hundreds of people that TVA contractors hired to clean up the spill. For about four years, Thacker spent every afternoon driving 35 miles from his home to arrive in time for his 5 p.m. shift, just as the makeshift overhead lights illuminating the canals of ash flicked on.

Dredging at night was hard work. The pump inside the dredge clogged repeatedly, so Thacker took off his shirt and entered water up to his armpits to remove rocks, tree limbs, tires, and other debris, sometimes in below-freezing temperatures. Soon, ringworm-like sores crested along his arms, interwoven with his fading red and blue tattoos. Thacker’s supervisors gave him a cream for the skin lesions, and he began wearing long black cow-birthing gloves while he unclogged pumps. While Thacker knew that the water was contaminated — that was the point of the dredging — he felt relatively safe. After all, TVA was one of the oldest and most respected employers in the state, with a sterling reputation for worker safety.

Then, one night, the dredging stopped.

Sometime between December 2009 and January 2010, roughly halfway through the final, 500-foot-wide section of the Emory designated for cleanup, operators turned off the pumps that sucked the ash from the river. For a multi-billion dollar remediation project, this order was unprecedented. The dredges had been operating 24/7 in an effort to clean up the disaster area as quickly as possible, removing roughly 3,000 cubic yards of material — almost enough to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool — each day. But official reports from TVA show that the dredging of the Emory encountered unusually high levels of contamination: Sediment samples showed that mercury levels were three times higher in the river than they were in coal ash from the holding pond that caused the disaster.

Then there was the nuclear waste. Continue reading →

May 3, 2025 Posted by | employment, environment, history, legal, PERSONAL STORIES, politics, Reference, safety, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)  predicts US nuclear weapons will cost nearly a trillion dollars over the coming decade.

Greg Mello, Los Alamos Study Group, 30 Apr 25

Albuquerque, NM — Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its latest biennial estimate of the costs of nuclear weapons over the coming decade (2025-2034).

CBO’s nuclear weapons cost estimates are built from the budget projections of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), as well as CBO’s own estimates of likely cost increases for these programs over the period in question, based on CBO’s historical records for comparable programs. 

CBO estimates that nuclear weapons will cost a total of $946 billion (B) over the coming decade, an average of about $95 B per year. This is $190 B (25%) higher than CBO’s estimate from two years ago.

Albuquerque, NM — Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its latest biennial estimate of the costs of nuclear weapons over the coming decade (2025-2034).

CBO’s nuclear weapons cost estimates are built from the budget projections of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), as well as CBO’s own estimates of likely cost increases for these programs over the period in question, based on CBO’s historical records for comparable programs. 

CBO estimates that nuclear weapons will cost a total of $946 billion (B) over the coming decade, an average of about $95 B per year. This is $190 B (25%) higher than CBO’s estimate from two years ago.

In the case of the Sentinel silo-based missile system, CBO’s estimates explicitly “do not include all of the cost growth that the program is likely to experience” (pp. 6-7). In other words, CBO knows its estimate is too low but cannot provide a defensible better one, because it would only be a guess at this point. In other words, neither DoD nor CBO have any real idea what Sentinel will cost.

Many nuclear weapons-related costs, such as DOE environmental cleanup, are not included.

The report breaks down its findings in several ways, all clearly presented. Year-by-year estimates are not provided.

CBO’s findings include these items of particular interest regarding NNSA:

  • NNSA’s facility modernization plans are likely to cost $72 B over the coming decade, out of a total of $110 B that NNSA will spend on facilities over this period (p. 5). NNSA’s facilities will thus cost much more than the $16 B earmarked for “stockpile services” (NNSA’s part in maintaining existing weapons), or the $67 B to be spent on “other stewardship and support activities” (p. 4).
  • “CBO projects that the costs of nuclear acquisition programs would represent 11.8 percent of DoD’s total planned acquisition costs over the next decade as outlined in the 2025 budget submission…Competition for funding among
    acquisition programs will force DoD to make difficult choices about which programs to pursue.” (pp. 5-6).
  • NNSA’s projected total 10-year costs have increased by 27% over just the past two years. Some 85% ($45 B / $83 B) of these costs are not associated with any particular warhead but are rather expenses associated with NNSA’s capabilities overall (p. 10). CBO believes NNSA’s programs will cost an extra $11 B over the decade beyond NNSA’s projections, a little more than $1 B per year.
  • Regarding NNSA’s cost increase, “[a]bout 60 percent of the total increase comes from higher expected costs for operation and modernization of infrastructure, including establishing and operating new pit production facilities, secondary production facilities, tritium production facilities, and domestic uranium enrichment facilities. About 30 percent comes from support programs, such as scientific research to improve the weapon production and sustainment process, and federal employee oversight of contractors operating laboratories.” The balance of the NNSA increase comes from new programs and projects, leading to higher annual spending in the 2032-2034 years than in 2023-2024 years, which are now in the rear-view mirror.
  • “CBO’s estimates come with substantial uncertainty stemming mainly from two sources: Future plans may not be achievable, leading to cost growth and delays; and the costs of developing, producing, and operating weapon systems are uncertain even when the plans are fully determined” (p. 8).

Study Group director Greg Mello:

“As CBO notes, most nuclear weapons costs are incurred by modernizing the arsenal and its production facilities, not by deploying and maintaining existing weapons.

“NNSA insists that its entire growing portfolio of projects and programs is necessary. There is no distinction between “needs” and “wants.” NNSA also believes, and has said, it is no longer “cost-constrained” [NNSA: “Evolving the Nuclear Security Enterprise,” Sep 2022, p. 3]. Under these assumptions, NNSA’s costs are certain to continue growing rapidly. If the present growth rate continues, NNSA’s warhead budget will double in less than 8 years. 

“There is one high-dollar NNSA infrastructure program that is not generic to all warheads but rather needed solely for just one, namely pit production at LANL. LANL pit production is explicitly directed to the W87-1 warhead for the Sentinel missile and is unlikely to be sustainable beyond the needs of that program, if indeed it can be established at all. The jury is still out on whether LANL pit production will be possible, or stable and if so, for how long. 

“NNSA will not be able to operate two pit facilities, even if it can set one up at LANL. Once the pit facility at the Savannah River Site begins production, every budget hawk on Capitol Hill and the Pentagon will eye LANL’s gerry-rigged pit program for closure, assuming it operates at all.

“As CBO notes, there will be increased competition for defense dollars as nuclear weapons programs grow. The huge expenses tallied in this report were not anticipated at the outset of the nuclear modernization program. Since 2015, and with every report, estimated nuclear weapons costs have increased beyond prior predictions, from $348 B in 2015 to $946 B today. The opportunity costs are staggering.

“CBO devotes two big text boxes to the troubled Sentinel program — why they can’t estimate its cost, etc. The buzzards are circling. The coming year will bring more revelations about Sentinel and they won’t be good. The White House and Congress should pull the plug on Sentinel now, however difficult that would be.

“In every report since 2015, CBO has revised its estimate of future cost overruns. This year’s prediction will also be too low, especially for Sentinel and NNSA.

“The problems faced by nuclear weapons programs cannot all be fixed by pouring in more money. There are very real material and human limitations involved. There will be no return to the ‘heroic mode of production’ for nuclear weapons. Even if Congress dumped $100 or $200 billion more on nuclear weapons, the system that produces them would not ‘jump to the task’ for years, if at all. The people, the skills, the facilities, the motivation — none of these are in place for a nuclear arms race, especially if the U.S. is going to build its manufacturing back and repair its sorry civilian infrastructure. The neocons who want to ramp up nuclear production are ignorant about what that would really entail. They are going to be sorely disappointed.

“Practical problems aside, ‘peace through strength’ is a mistaken idea in this place and time, especially as regards nuclear weapons. No thoughtful strategy supports the proliferation of US nuclear weapons. Quite the contrary — present policies are driven by organized greed and fear. US nuclear weapons policies, and as we see here their costs, are out of control.”

May 2, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Scrapping Britain’s nuclear power plans would lead to lower energy bills

Letters,  John French,  and Dr David Lowry 29 Apr 25, https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/apr/28/scrapping-britains-nuclear-power-plans-would-lead-to-lower-energy-bills

You report that experts have warned that adding levies to electricity bills to support low-carbon projects will make it more difficult for people to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels (Why the UK’s electricity costs are so high – and what can be done about it, 20 April).

One way to reduce those levies dramatically would be to scrap all planned nuclear power stations. These include the crazily expensive Sizewell C, which has already received nearly 2.5bn in subsidies before it has even started construction and which will cost the bill payer dear, even without the inevitable huge cost overruns that the French-state-owned EDF always incurs (think Flamanville and Hinkley C); and the four, possibly six, new reactors to be built on a flood plain on the River Severn at Oldbury in Gloucestershire.


Letters

Scrapping Britain’s nuclear power plans would lead to lower energy bills

New nuclear power stations will cost billions to build and run, and cost taxpayers and energy customers dear, says John French. Plus a letter from Dr David LowryTue 29 Apr 2025 01.52 AESTShare

You report that experts have warned that adding levies to electricity bills to support low-carbon projects will make it more difficult for people to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels (Why the UK’s electricity costs are so high – and what can be done about it, 20 April).

One way to reduce those levies dramatically would be to scrap all planned nuclear power stations. These include the crazily expensive Sizewell C, which has already received nearly 2.5bn in subsidies before it has even started construction and which will cost the bill payer dear, even without the inevitable huge cost overruns that the French-state-owned EDF always incurs (think Flamanville and Hinkley C); and the four, possibly six, new reactors to be built on a flood plain on the River Severn at Oldbury in Gloucestershire.

These latter reactors are still at an early design stage, will have to go through years of safety approval before construction can start, and, being of an uncertain and novel design, will end up costing the bill payer a fortune in subsidies. And then there’s the unquantifiable cost of decommissioning and trying to deal with the highly radioactive waste.

The energy minister, Ed Miliband, has publicly expressed doubts in the past about the wisdom of subsidising nuclear power at the expense of renewables. Now is the time for him to scrap all plans for this unaffordable and dangerous way to boil water, and invest in renewables, including tidal power.
John French
Stand (Severnside Together Against Nuclear Development)


 Your report says that “by generating more electricity from renewable energy and nuclear reactors, electricity costs would begin to fall”. All reliable recent studies demonstrate this is so for renewables, but not so for nuclear, if the full costs of uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication, radioactive waste management and nuclear facility decommissioning are taken into account.

To illustrate this, a very recent report from the US Department of Energy projects to final clean-up costs of Hanford, the US equivalent of Sellafield, but bigger, is an extraordinary $589bn. These huge sums need to be factored into nuclear power’s costs to give the real price of power from splitting the atom.
Dr David Lowry
Co-author, The International Politics of Nuclear Waste

April 30, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

EDF’s new UK plants should be negotiated as one, French energy minister says.

EDF’s two UK nuclear construction projects at Hinkley Point and Sizewell
should be negotiated as a single financial venture, France’s energy
minister has urged, to prevent the French energy giant shouldering
significant cost overruns.

Marc Ferracci said he had held discussions on
the projects with Britain’s energy minister Ed Miliband on Thursday, on
the sidelines of an energy security summit in London. “France and EDF are
very committed to deliver the projects but we have to find a way to
accelerate them and we have to find a way to consolidate the financial
schemes of both projects,” Ferracci told the FT.

France has been lobbying
the UK government to help EDF with the finances of Hinkley Point C in
Somerset for more than a year. It argues that the French state-owned
electricity operator should not be left on the hook for cost overruns that
have taken the total bill to as high as £46bn. EDF — which has also
experienced long delays on other projects using the same reactor technology
in Finland and France — has warned that the first of two reactors at
Hinkley Point C could be delayed to as late as 2031, which would be six
years later than its original target.

The French company has a smaller
equity stake in the Sizewell C project in Suffolk, which it is also
developing. Ferracci denied that the French government was seeking to use
Sizewell as “leverage” to help bail it out of financial difficulties at
Hinkley.

 FT 25th April 2025,
https://www.ft.com/content/0c50a553-3376-42d8-8ac5-c8aa84d2e78d

April 27, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »