Boeing blacklisted by largest Nordic fund company over nuclear weapons making
Nordea blacklists Boeing over nuclear arms Madison Marriage , Ft.com , 5 May 15 Boeing has been blacklisted by the largest Nordic fund company over concerns that the civil and defence aerospace group is producing nuclear weapons.
Nordea Asset Management, which oversees €174bn of assets, told FTfm it added Boeing to its exclusion list in May due to the group’s involvement in producing components for replacement nuclear-armed Trident ballistic missile submarines in 2014.
The exclusion creates further problems for Boeing, which has already been blacklisted by the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund and a number Europe’s largest pension funds.
Sasja Beslik, head of corporate governance at Nordea, said: “Boeing is in the process of developing a new nuclear programme, [which means] we cannot engage with them. These companies will not change their business models, because [nuclear] is too lucrative.”…….
Nordea already excludes a handful of companies involved in manufacturing or supplying nuclear weapons, including UK groups BAE Systems andBabcock International and Areva of France………
The Norwegian Government Pension Fund, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, has blacklisted 10 companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons, including Boeing, since 2005.
PGGM, the second-largest Dutch pension fund manager, with €189bn of assets, has similarly excluded more than a dozen companies, including Boeing, over their involvement in nuclear arms since 2008………http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ab38fee8-eff9-11e4-ab73-00144feab7de.html#axzz3ZJPY7ucS
Chinese nuclear companies keen to market reactors overseas
Chinese Nuclear Firms Compete Abroad for Exports and for Market Share at Home, Energy Collective Two giant rival Chinese state-owned nuclear firms are pulling out the stops to achieve success with exports and increased market share of the restarted domestic reactor construction program. The so-called Hualong One, a 1000 MW PWR type reactor, is being hawked by both firms, but with significant enough design differences that potential customers worry about supply chain issues……..
Moving Inland from the Coast
Up to now China has been building its reactors at coastal sites. The reasons include the available seawater for cooling the units and the ability to deliver very large reactor components by barge. However, the China National Energy Administration is now looking at inland sites again. Following the Fukushima earthquake, the agency suspended consideration of new construction starts away from coastal regions.
The main issue was consideration of adequate cooling water supplies in an emergency. At issue is a 100% fail safe supply of water in regions which may have some areas which may have inadequate freshwater resources even without the demand of a new power plant………http://theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/2223861/chinese-nuclear-firms-compete-abroad-exports-and-market-share-home
Business Academy condems nuclear power as economically not viable
Before rushing to endorse nuclear expansion, regulatory agencies and individual researchers should critically examine past performance and demand experimental proof for claims that the next generation of nuclear plants (should any ever be considered for construction) will be economically viable, climate-friendly, and accident-proof.
It is believed that next generation reactors will differ dramatically from current reactors in that they will replace active water cooling and multiple backup safety systems with “passive safety” designs. In fact, many nuclear advocates and news reports inaccurately describe the proposed new reactor designs, such as the pebble bed modular reactors, as “accident-proof” or “fail-safe.”
Nuclear Power: Totally Unqualified to Combat Climate Change BY RINALDO S. BRUTOCO , WORDL BUSINESS ACADEMY SEPTEMBER 14, 2014 “………From a business perspective, private investors should be seen as the ultimate ”referees” on competing energy choices, using informed diligence and prudent criteria to determine which energy technologies can compete in the market with the best chance of generating revenues and profits. As Amory Lovins points out, the capital markets have already spoken. Private investors and project finance lenders have flatly rejected large base-load nuclear power plants and have enthusiastically embraced supply-side competitors, decentralized cogeneration, and renewables……… We believe the reason all sophisticated investors avoid nuclear investments isbecause no one has figured out how to build a reactor that doesn’t routinely emit toxic levels of radioactivity while still producing power economically, and because there is no safe disposal system known to humanity.
The commercial nuclear industry has been around for over half a century, so the prudent approach would be to look at the industry’s track record. Continue reading
Nuclear industry embarks on a public advertising campaign
Nuclear power industry hopes for a new era, Standard Times James Osborne, Apr 25, 2015“…….With high-profile advocates like former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christie Whitman on board, the industry is embarking on a very public campaign arguing nuclear must be part of any national energy plan. To accomplish that, it wants to examine amending power and licensing regulations to encourage nuclear and speed up construction.
the industry will face opposition. Nuclear remains a divisive issue among environmentalists. Some support it as a proven means to cut carbon emissions out of the nation’s power supply.
But there are many see its potential contamination risks as just too great to make it sensible……..http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/state/nuclearpowerda_54975979
10 reasons why the global nuclear industry is in crisis – theme for May 2015
The global nuclear industry is sick, indeed, it is in palliative care. And here are 10 good reasons why:
1. Gloom overlies the nuclear lobby, fear of this question: the next nuclear catastrophe. Not IF it will happen, but WHEN and WHERE?
2. Aging, dangerous nuclear reactors that are too costly to make safe. .
3. “New nuclear” is a joke. The nuclear lobby will boast of so many “planned”, “proposed” reactors. But new ones actually being built? – just two and a half duds.
4 Discord and dissension in the nuclear camp. Nuclear countries cannot afford new reactors, so desperately compete to sell them to other countries.
Meanwhile nuclear companies battle it out to market their particular new gee-whiz nuclear reactor version.
5. Climate change affects nuclear reactors.
6. Nuclear weapons now out-dated. 21st Century conflict is all about smaller, targeted 
weapons, like the USA’s assassination drones. Pride and status are now the only motives for having nuclear weapons.
7. Decline in electricity use
8 Renewable energy, both centralised and small scale, is fast being developed, and widely popular (unlike nuclear).
9. Danger – whatever kind of nuclear facility – there is always the danger of accident or terrorism – they are a target for terrorists.
10 Public opinion. Worldwide – people just don’t like nuclear power.
Nuclear lobby pushing for corporate welfare and exports, through the Export-Import Bank
“Taxpayers should not be in the business of subsidizing risky loans or giving money to big businesses and foreign countries,” said Levi Russell, spokesman for Americans for Prosperity, a Tea Party-aligned group that, along with dozens of other conservative groups, is urging Congress to let Ex-Im expire.
Ex-Im fight goes nuclear, The Hill, 22 Apr 15 The nuclear power sector is emerging as one of the most vocal proponents of the Export-Import Bank, as debate intensifies over whether to reauthorize the increasingly controversial institution.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is leading the charge to demonstrate to lawmakers that closing the bank would threaten the billions of dollars in economic activity and tens of thousands of jobs that come from exporting U.S. nuclear power technology and products.
The nuclear industry is also proving to be a top player among the big business groups that are doing the bulk of the lobbying on Ex-Im, which provides financing for U.S. companies to sell products and services to foreign customers.
Exports are essential to the nuclear industry, because a new reactor has not come online in the United States in nearly two decades and only five are under construction…….
The global market represents an important bounty for the U.S. industry. Continue reading
Obama keen to sell USA nuclear technology to China
Obama proposes 30-year agreement with China on nuclear power WASHINGTON
(Reuters) 22 Apr – President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed a 30-year agreement to cooperate with China on nuclear power, a deal that would allow the transfer of material, reactors, components and technology between the two nations, if approved by the U.S. Congress.
(Reporting by Roberta Rampton and Jeff Mason!) http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/us-usa-china-nuclear-idUSKBN0NC29220150421
South Korea hopes new deal with USA will forward its nuclear technology export business
S. Korea, US strike new civil nuclear deal, Phys Org 22 Apr 15 South Korea and the United States agreed a new nuclear cooperation pact Wednesday that stopped short of granting Seoul the permission it had sought to start reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.
But Seoul welcomed the deal, saying it provided a framework for improving spent fuel management and boosting nuclear exports. The new pact, which replaces an existing 1974 accord, was struck after four-and-a-half years of intense, drawn-out negotiations.
The main sticking point had been South Korea’s desire to develop uranium enrichment and reprocessing capabilities in order to address concerns about energy security and the management of spent nuclear reactor fuel.
Seoul says its storage facilities for spent fuel will reach capacity in 2016.
Long-standing US policy opposes the spread of such capabilities because they can be used to produce weapons-grade nuclear material and therefore pose a significant proliferation risk.
A South Korean statement on the new deal was short on specific detail but suggested it opened the door to reprocessing sometime in the future, by allowing South Korea to conduct “research” into spent fuel management.
That includes research into “pyroprocessing”—a new technology considered largely proliferation resistant, since the product is thermally and radioactively far too hot to use for a weapon.
“We established a pathway to lift some restrictions on activities in Seoul-owned facilities and to allow certain activities in the future,” the statement from the foreign ministry said……..
The deal was signed by Park and the US ambassador to Seoul, Mark Lippert, and will now go through an internal review process in both countries prior to ratification.
South Korea is a key US military ally and analysts say Washington’s concerns on allowing reprocessing stem less from a distrust of Seoul’s ultimate intentions than from the impact it might have on negotiations with other countries.
There are also worries that wider concessions on reprocessing could further complicate efforts to roll back North Korea’s nuclear programme.
Currently, Japan is the only non-nuclear weapons state that has both the technical capability and international permission to operate a commercial spent-fuel reprocessing programme.
Seoul had argued that allowing Japan to reprocess while denying South Korea the same concessions, smacks of double-standards, but Japan was forced to accept highly intrusive safeguards and, US officials point out, it doesn’t have North Korea on its border.
South Korea is the fifth-largest consumer of nuclear energy in the world, and relies on 23 nuclear reactors to meet about 30 percent of its annual power needs.
It has sought to become a leading exporter of nuclear power plants since it won a $20 billion deal in 2009 to build nuclear reactors in the United Arab Emirates. http://phys.org/news/2015-04-south-korea-nuclear.html#jCp
Flamanville nuclear safety problem – a knockout blow for UK’s EPR reactor project?
France’s nuclear calamity has UK worried, The Local, 21 Apr 2015 France’s world renowned prowess in the nuclear industry is being seriously undermined by its efforts to build a flagship nuclear reactor which is fast becoming a costly calamity. The future of the Flamanville 3 project appears to hang in the balance after yet another major setback that has London worried.
It was supposed to showcase the expertise of France’s nuclear energy industry to the world and is key to the UK’s own nuclear strategy. But after being beset by hold-ups and snags – the latest and potentially most serious one coming last week, the flagship project to build a new state of the art nuclear reactor, France is getting a reputation for all the wrong reasons and London has been left looking on nervously.
In 2005 the French government proudly gave the green light for construction to begin on the first third-generation nuclear reactor at Flamanville in Normandy on the north coast, a site environmentalists say is threatened by flooding.The third-generation “European Pressurized Reactor” (EPR), built by EDF and Areva, was supposed to be in operation by 2012 and is meant to be one of the safest reactors in the world, and the most energy efficient. It was commissioned as part of France’s nuclear renaissance programme that will see the country’s aging nuclear plants replaced over time.
However Flamanville 3, as it is known, is unlikely to start producing power anytime soon after being hampered by a litany of problems and incidents, including the death of a construction worker in 2011 (see below).
The latest setback came last week when it was revealed that “a very serious fault” had been detected in the steel of the “pressure vessel” – a key component of the reactor, meaning another delay of at least a year was likely. “It is a serious fault, even a very serious fault, because it involves a crucial part of the nuclear reactor,” said Pierre-Franck Chevet, head of France’s nuclear safety agency (ASN).
That “fault” means construction is unlikely to be completed before 2018 and more worryingly, the budget, initially set at €3.3 billion, is now estimated at more than €9 billion and counting.
In short Flamanville has become France’s own “nuclear catastrophe” as it was described in one of the many critical articles in the French press. Tests will need to be carried out on the steel vessel but if after these tests the vessel still does not meet necessary safety standards, it will need to be changed.
“That’s a very difficult operation in terms of costs and time,” said the ASN’s Chevet. The steel vessels weigh around 425 tonnes and stand around 11 metres high so building a new one would take considerable time and come at a huge cost.Changing the vessel would be a major headache given all the construction work that would need to be undone.
Some in the business of nuclear safety have even suggested that if the steel vessel needs replacing then the whole project could be scrapped. That will have authorities in the UK sweating as the same steel has been used to build two vessels destined for the planned EPR nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in the UK.…….
“This is clearly the knock-out blow for the EPR reactor,” said Yannick Rousselet from Greenpeace. “What foreign client would want to purchase a reactor of this type, if even France itself is not able to complete the construction?
“The bill from the EPR reactor will be so high that it won’t end up showcasing what to do, but exactly the opposite,” said Rousselet. “This is a huge blow to the know-how of the French nuclear industry.”
Greenpeace has called for work at Flamanville to be called off.
“It must be stopped immediately so there is no more wasting of public funds on this industrial nightmare,” said Rousselet, who added that France should be concentrating resources on finding renewable energy solutions……..http://www.thelocal.fr/20150421/flamanville-frances-own-nuclear-nightmare
Exelon’s strategies indicate that the nuclear industry is a thing of the past
Did Exelon Corporation Just Quietly Admit That Nuclear Power Is Dead?, Motley Fool, By Maxx Chatsko | April 21, 2015 | “………..The fast-falling costs of renewable energy and sudden global abundance of natural gas have turned the tables on nuclear power generators, which suffer from relatively high maintenance costs and, for newer plants, absurdly high upfront construction costs.
Therefore, it should also not come as a surprise that Exelon has been carefully hedging against its existing nuclear power plants by investing in lower-cost generation. For instance, the company recently handed General Electric Company (NYSE: GE ) over $500 million for four next-generation natural gas turbines, which will combine to generate over 2,000 MW of electricity for the Texas grid. Is this a quiet admission that traditional nuclear power is dead?……….
Although the details surrounding the natural gas fired turbines look favorable for investors, some simple number-crunching certainly favors the thesis that traditional nuclear power is dead, even if Exelon hasn’t explicitly mentioned the possibility (or considered it internally). While the company won’t be ditching its existing nuclear facilities anytime soon, investors surely shouldn’t expect it to build any new nuclear capacity, either………
Or think about it another way: Exelon’s investment will increase its 2013 natural gas capacity by 25% and represent more capacity than the company’s total wind and solar assets. Even if the company paid twice as much for future next-generation natural gas turbines, or $1 billion for 1,000 MW of capacity, it could replace its entire 19,000 MW nuclear fleet for just $19 billion. That’s 126% of the price tag Southern Co is shelling out for just 2,500 MW of new nuclear capacity!
If that doesn’t communicate the fact that new construction of traditional nuclear power is a thing of the past, then perhaps nothing will…….
The fact that Exelon is going all-in on cheaper and more profitable power generation is terrific news for investors, and the wider trend sweeping the power industry will be great news for General Electric investors, too. ………http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/04/21/did-exelon-corporation-just-quietly-admit-that-nuc.aspx
Germany’s nuclear exit costly: other countries’ exit might be worse
Costs for Germany’s nuclear exit could rise to $75 billion http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/20/us-germany-utilities-nuclear-exit-idUSKBN0NB18S20150420 BERLIN Reuters) – The bill for shutting down Germany’s nuclear power plants and building a safe disposal site for nuclear waste could rise to 70 billion euros ($75 billion), the head of a government commission told daily Frankfurter Rundschau in an interview
E.ON, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall [VATN.UL] are due to switch off their nuclear plants by a 2022 deadline set by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government after the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011.
A decision by E.ON to restructure its business and spin off its conventional power plants raised additional fears that taxpayers may end up footing a portion of the bill for dismantling the nuclear plants and storing waste.
“There are significant financial risks coming up for the state,” said Michael Mueller, head of the government’s task force charged with finding a disposal site for nuclear waste.
The costs for the nuclear exit could rise to up to 70 billion euros over the next decades, meaning that the 36 billion euros ($38 billion) in provisions set aside by the four nuclear operators were not sufficient, he added.
Spokesmen from E.ON and EnBW said in separate statements that the companies’ provisions were sufficient and that they were certified on a regular basis by external auditors. conomy Minister Sigmar Gabriel has told lawmakers from his center-left Social Democrat (SPD) party that he wants to look into creating a public body to oversee the multibillion-euro risks associated with the nuclear switch-off.
The government is sounding out the option of subjecting the balance sheets of the four nuclear power plant operators to a stress test to ensure their provisions are adequate.
(Reporting by Michael Nienaber, Markus Wacket, Vera Eckert and Chris Steitz, editing by William Hardy)
Tax battle, indigenous opposition – add to woes of uranium company Cameco
Multi-million dollar tax battle casts shadow over Canada-India uranium deal, Vancouver Observer The Canadian mining company selected to provide uranium to India is still fighting Canada Revenue Agency over millions in unpaid back taxes. Danny Kresnyak
Apr 19th, 2015 “……….. Cameco, the Saskatchewan-based company hired to supply India with 3,220 metric tonnes of uranium over five years, is wrapped up in legal a fight with Canada Revenue Agency over millions in owed taxes. In 2013, the Globe and Mail reported the company owes $800 million in back taxes………
in addition to the tax battle with Canada Revenue Agency, the company’s drilling operations in Saskatchewan are facing significant opposition from the Clearwater Dene First Nation…….
In a road north of La Loche, Saskatchewan, a group called “Holding the Line Northern Trappers Alliance” (HLNNTA) has been camping in the area to block companies from further exploratory drilling in their territory. The group first set up camp last November, and promises to remain until mining companies leave.
The HLNNTA argued they are unable to pursue the traditional, ecologically sound way of life of their ancestors, due to incursion by companies like Cameco looking for mineral deposits on their land.
HLNNTA spokesperson Candyce Paul told the Vancouver Observer she was opposed to the Cameco uranium deal with India. She said “scientific evidence is building towards proving that the uranium mining industry is killing the Indigenous people of northern Saskatchewan.”………
Obama keen to sell USA nuclear technology to China
Obama Submits to Congress 30-year Civil Nuclear Power Agreement With China Obama submitted to Congress a 30-year civil nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and China for approval.
The US Congress has to approve the nuclear cooperation agreement for it to go into effect. http://sputniknews.com/us/20150421/1021197861.html#ixzz3Xz1ERlru
UK’s £14bn Hinkley project – future now in doubt, as faults found in identical French project
UK nuclear strategy faces meltdown as faults are found in identical French project The faults could also scare off the Chinese state investors who are supposed to cover part of the cost of the £14bn Hinkley project Independent JOHN LICHFIELD 
PARIS Friday 17 April 2015 A “very serious” fault has been discovered in a French nuclear power station which is at the heart of David Cameron’s strategy to “keep the lights on” in Britain in the next decade.
The future of two nuclear reactors planned for Hinkley Point in Somerset has been thrown into doubt by the discovery of a potentially catastrophic mistake in the construction of an identical EPR power plant in Normandy.
“It is a serious fault, even a very serious fault, because it involves a crucial part of the nuclear reactor,” said Pierre-Franck Chevet, head of France’s nuclear safety inspectorate.
A second investigation has been ordered into the quality of the steel used to make a 50ft-high safety casing, or “pressure vessel”, which encloses the groundbreaking new reactor at Flamanville, near Cherbourg. If the steel proves to be defective, the completion of the prototype EPR plant – already behind schedule and nearly three times over budget – could be delayed for several years.
Mr Chevet also revealed that the same manufacturing techniques had been used in the steel for the identical safety casings destined for Hinkley Point, which “have already been manufactured”.
The fault could undermine the already fragile finances of the French state-owned nuclear construction company Areva, which is supposed to build two EPR reactors at Hinkley by 2023 and a third at Sizewell in Suffolk. It could also scare off the Chinese state investors who are supposed to cover part of the cost of the £14bn Hinkley project, intended to supply six per cent of Britain’s energy needs for six decades.
A final “investment” decision for Hinkley, several times delayed, is now expected in June. The French Prime Minister Manuel Valls called a crisis meeting on 17 April to discuss the threat posed by the fault to France’s nuclear construction industry – the largest in the world.
Mark Hackett, a councillor in Manchester who chairs Nuclear Free Local Authorities, said: “This is a devastating blow to proponents of new-build nuclear power stations in the UK. It is likely to scare off the Chinese backers. If I was a betting man, I would now bet that Hinkley Point will never be built.”
Yannick Rousselet, of Greenpeace France, said the latest problems to beset the prototype power station in Normandy are “clearly the coup de grâce for the EPR idea”. He asked: “What foreign client would want to buy this reactor when France itself is not capable of completing its construction?”
Apart from Britain, the United States and China are in the process of buying versions of the new generation of European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) – supposedly safer and more efficient – from France. Both Areva and Eléctricité de France (EDF), the French energy giant which will own and operate Hinkley Point, have refused to comment in detail………
Sources in the French nuclear industry told the newspaper Le Parisien yesterday that dismantling the faulty pressure vessel and ordering and manufacturing a new one could take several years. “If the weakness of the steel is proved, I don’t hold out much hope for the survival of the EPR project,” a former senior nuclear safety official told Le Parisien………..http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-nuclear-strategy-faces-meltdown-as-faults-are-found-in-identical-french-project-10186163.html
Dozens of USA nuclear reactors at risk of closure for economic reasons.
As many as three dozen reactors are considered at risk of closure for economic reasons.Electricity producers in several states are asking for hundreds of millions of dollars in financial support to keep costly nuclear power plants in business—a move that is likely to boost customers’ power bills. Continue reading
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (92)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 