nuclear-news

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

UK unveils GBP 5.5bn subsidy plan for 3.2 GW nuclear plant

The UK government has approved a GBP 5.5bn subsidy scheme aimed at getting the planned 3.2 GW Sizewell C nuclear power plant in southeast England to a final investment decision (FID) later this year.

Reporting by: Kelly Paul, 30 Aug 2024 ,
https://montelnews.com/news/4f3631b9-b370-4dda-a878-61850539b094/uk-unveils-gbp-55bn-subsidy-plan-for-32-gw-nuclear-plant

The so-called Sizewell C Development Expenditure (Devex) Scheme will enable the government to increase equity injections into the project, giving it greater flexibility to cover development costs up to and including an FID, it said in a statement on Friday.

Funding for the Devex scheme will be subject to the Labour government’s forthcoming spending review.

The UK is targeting 50 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050 as part of its plans for energy security. Currently, the country’s eight nuclear power sites have a total combined capacity of about 6.5 GW.

The government is seeking private investors for Sizewell C via a regulated asset base (RAB) financing mechanism.

Sizewell C received a nuclear site licence from the country’s Office for Nuclear Regulation in May.

White elephant?
However, in the wake of today’s announcement, campaign group Stop Sizewell C questioned where the money was going to come from.

“Sizewell C has already chewed through GBP 2.5bn and now we learn that there is the potential for a staggering GBP 5.5bn more of our taxpayers’ money to be thrown at this white elephant,” it said in a statement. 

“Labour complained about a black hole in the country’s finances, yet now they are proposing to dig still further. Where would this cash come from?”

September 1, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

South Korea pushes to export nuclear reactors to Europe

Asian nation seeks to become leading player in market dominated by China and Russia

Ft.com Song Jung-a and Christian Davies in Seoul, Raphael Minder in Warsaw, Sarah White in Paris and Alice Hancock in Brussels , 29 Aug 24,

South Korea is accelerating its push to export nuclear reactors to Europe as it seeks to become a leading player in a global market dominated by China and Russia.

After beating Westinghouse of the US and France’s EDF to become preferred bidder on a $17bn project in the Czech Republic in July, state-run utility Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power is set to sign a contract early next year for two reactors in the central European country.

The deal, if completed, will mark Korea’s first major overseas nuclear power project in 15 years, since a consortium led by KHNP parent Kepco won a $20bn contract in 2009 to build and operate four nuclear plants in the United Arab Emirates.

Whang Joo-ho, the president of KHNP, said the company was conducting a feasibility study for a nuclear power plant in the Netherlands and was in talks to build reactors in Finland and Sweden as it aims to export 10 more reactors globally by 2030.

Kepco has also held early-stage discussions with British officials about building a new station on the island of Anglesey off the coast of Wales. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

There could be bumps along the way for the South Koreans, however. KHNP faces claims from Westinghouse that they used its proprietary technology for their APR1400 reactors. A US district court last year dismissed Westinghouse’s lawsuit that argued that the Korean companies violated US export regulations requiring US government approval for technology sharing. However, the dispute remains unresolved as the court did not rule on the issue of intellectual property infringement.

The Czech deal has highlighted South Korea’s efforts at a time when projects run by western competitors including EDF remain mired in construction delays and cost overruns.

Although Ahn, the South Korean industry minister, said earlier this month that the two companies were “in last-stage talks” to settle the disputes, the US company this week filed an appeal with the Czech anti-monopoly office in protest at the selection of KHNP as the preferred bidder.

“KHNP neither owns the underlying technology nor has the right to sub-licence it to a third party without Westinghouse consent,” the US company said……………………………………………………………

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.comT&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/85a7e313-6089-4ba9-8f5b-f45adcbc5074

Suh Kyun-ryul, a nuclear expert and a former professor at Seoul National University, said KHNP would probably have to reach a financial settlement with Westinghouse. “This could even end up as a lossmaking deal,” he said. Suh also noted that South Korea was constrained by a long-standing agreement with the US that was signed in the 1950s to restrict Seoul’s ability to develop a nuclear weapons programme.

Under the agreement, South Korea’s access to raw material supplies is limited and it is not allowed to conduct uranium enrichment or the reprocessing of used fuel. Long-term buyers were likely to ask for a one-stop service ranging from nuclear fuel supply to waste disposal, he said, adding the US agreement remained “South Korea’s Achilles heel”.  https://www.ft.com/content/85a7e313-6089-4ba9-8f5b-f45adcbc5074

August 29, 2024 Posted by | marketing, South Korea | Leave a comment

Ukraine doubles down on Russian reactors in nuclear power push

Politico, August 27, 2024, By Gabriel Gavin

Ukraine will push forward with controversial plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on aging Russian-made nuclear reactors despite growing opposition from lawmakers, the country’s energy minister said, amid warnings of a major power crisis this winter.

German Galushchenko told POLITICO that the government still intends to pursue the expansion of the Khmelnytskyi nuclear power station in western Ukraine, buying two VVER-1000 reactors currently in storage in Bulgaria. The proposal has drawn criticism from the ruling party’s own MPs, who say there are quicker ways to help prop up the electricity grid, which has been hit hard by Russian bombing…………………..

Last week, Ukrainian MPs told POLITICO that the government had been forced to acknowledge it did not have sufficient support in the parliament to pass a draft law legislating for the purchase of the reactors.

According to Andrii Zhupanyn, a lawmaker from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People Party, such defeats are “extremely rare.”

MPs questioned whether the mothballed reactors, bought by Bulgaria more than a decade ago, would be able to be quickly brought into service, and whether the funds could be better spent on renewable power and other sources of electricity. The costs, they said, would likely balloon and open the door to corruption………………………………………………………………………….  https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-russia-reactor-khmelnytskyi-nuclear-power-station/

August 28, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Ukraine | Leave a comment

China keeps door firmly closed to Japanese seafood imports

Japan Times, Zhoushan, China – 24 Aug 24

China is keeping its door tightly shut to Japanese fishery products after imposing an import ban a year ago in protest against the discharge of treated water into the sea from a crippled nuclear power plant in Japan.

Despite Tokyo’s repeated assurances that the procedure is safe, Chinese officials still refer to the treated water, which contains small amounts of radioactive tritium, as “nuclear-contaminated water.”

Tokyo and Beijing are in talks over the issue but there are no clues yet as to how the situation could be resolved.

In a meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa late last month, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reiterated Beijing’s demand that an international system to monitor the water release be established.

China imposed the blanket ban on fishery products from Japan on Aug. 24 last year immediately after the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant started releasing treated water.

Chinese trade statistics show that no fishery products, except aquarium fish, have been imported from Japan since September last year…………………………………………..

The Japanese food company’s sales in China have yet to return to normal levels. “The situation remains tough,” the food company official said.

The impact of the import ban has spread further than Beijing had anticipated.

A woman in her 40s in Beijing said she has not eaten marine products for a long while.

……………………………………………Beijing has said seafood sold in China is safe because strict radiation inspections are conducted in China.

But a dealer in fishery products in Zhoushan said that the ocean is connected. It is illogical that Japanese products are dangerous and Chinese products are safe, the dealer said.

In China, experts’ views that the treated water would reach the Chinese coast as early as this spring spread in state media and on social media. ……………………………………………… https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2024/08/24/china-ban-japan-seafood/—

August 27, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, China | Leave a comment

SMRs and nuclear renaissance: Learning from past to avoid over promising on low costs

NS Energy 26 Aug 24, Dr Charles McCombie, Independent nuclear advisor

“………………….It is yet to be shown that the economies of scale which led to nuclear power plants becoming ever larger can be outweighed by the economies of multiples which are expected from factory line production – assuming that full order books can keep these lines busy. But for how many of the over 80 SMR designs being developed will there be a large enough market to feed a factory production line?

Already 50 years ago, physicists and engineers designing large nuclear power plants were focused on the interesting challenges of proposing ever more reactor variants that looked – on paper – to be more efficient, safer or cheaper. But even the comparatively limited variety of designs proposed back then proved to be more an obstacle than an advantage. The UK, for example, dithered for years in making hard choices, while building and operating expensive first-of-a-kind units of many different types. The most successful large reactor programme was in France where an early decision was taken to narrow in to a standardised PWR design. Today, the clear lesson is that only a handful of SMR designs can hope to benefit from economics of multiples and thus reach commercial success.

A further mistake from the past which also affects the economics is the long timescales required for implementation of nuclear power plants. Many of the delays have been due to technical or project management weaknesses but a large contributor has often been the time needed by regulators to license a new design. …………………………….

But getting the economics of SMRs right and shortening licensing and construction times will not on their own solve the problem. There are other challenges which large reactor designers ignored until too late. The clearest example here is neglecting to address the issue of safe disposal of spent fuel and/or highly radioactive wastes. Even today, although safe geological disposal facilities are being implemented, for example in Finland, the “unsolved waste problem” is still put forward by many as an objection to expanding nuclear power. SMR developers should, already at the design stage be considering what wastes will be produced and at the tendering stage should be offering specific help and advice to their potential customers, most especially if these are small or new nuclear nations.

In addition to these potential impediments to wide deployment of SMRs, there are some novel issues to be addressed. One of these is related to the nuclear proliferation and security concerns which might arise in a scenario where hundreds of SMRs are distributed around the globe in many countries with no nuclear experience and, in some cases, in remote regions within these countries. In the end, because of their smaller fissile inventories and compact designs, the nuclear security concerns with widespread SMR deployment may be less than with current nuclear power plants with their much larger inventories of fissile materials. However, the issue should be discussed now by the nuclear community and not ignored until it is brought up as an impediment by nuclear opponents in potential SMR user countries.

If we want to learn from the bitter lessons of past hoped-for nuclear renaissances, then we should learn from the mistakes made back then and also anticipate any new and novel issues that will arise with widespread SMR deployment. https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/analysis/smrs-and-nuclear-renaissance-learning-from-past-to-avoid-over-promising-on-low-costs/

August 26, 2024 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

“Final Investment Decision (FID) ” in Sizewell C nuclear station might never happen

There are media reports that a Final Investment Decision (FID) “risks
dragging into 2025″ over negotiations with investors. See Bloomberg’s
report, also New Civil Engineer and Energy Live News. These articles do not
consider whether a FID might not in fact ever happen, but we are keeping up
the pressure. Interestingly, while Bloomberg mentions four of the known
possible investors (see list below on original), USS and Equitix are absent. It’s
unclear what, if anything, this means but we are attempting to find out. If
you have not yet written to these companies to urge them not to invest, now
would be an excellent time to do so.

 Stop Sizewell C 22nd Aug 2024

https://mailchi.mp/stopsizewellc/fid-delay?e=326ee81c22

August 25, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

From the NPT to the UN Summit of the Future: Cut nuclear weapons budgets and investments

Aug 22, 2024, m https://nuclearweaponsmoney.org/news/from-the-npt-to-the-un-summit-of-the-future-cut-nuclear-weapons-budgets-and-investments/

Legislators and civil society organizations are using the opportunities of key international events in the latter part of 2024 to elevate calls for cuts in nuclear weapon budgets, an end to investments in the nuclear arms race, and a shift of these resources to better address planetary emergencies including an climate change, threats to biodiversity and an increase in the number and intensity of armed conflicts.

Actions utilizing these opportunities include parliamentary and civil society appeals to the two-week long meeting of States Parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the United Nations in Geneva (2024 NPT Prep Com) from July 22-August 2, and the UN Summit of the Future from September 22-23.

On July 23, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer presented a parliamentary appeal ‘Turn Back the Doomsday Clock’ to a plenary session of the NPT Prep Com with nine concrete proposals directed to both the NPT Prep Com and the UN Summit of the Future. One of the proposals calls on governments “cut nuclear weapons budgets and public investments in the nuclear weapons industry, and to re-purpose these resources to instead support public health, peace, climate stabilization and sustainable development.”

More than 80 parliamentarians from 35 legislatures endorsed the appeal, including members of foreign affairs and defence committees; parliamentary delegates to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, NATO Parliamentary Assembly and OSCE Parliamentary Assembly; former Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Disarmament; and others.

A similar appeal from faith-based organizations and leaders, entitled Pursuing Peace, Security and Nuclear Disarmament through our Common Humanity, was also presented at the NPT plenary session on July 23 by Ayleen Roy, a member of the Transnational working group on faith and values based perspectives. The appeal, which was endorsed by more than 80 faith-based organizations and an additional 180 faith and values based leaders and individuals, highlights principles common to all the world’s major religious and faith-based traditions that are relevant to peace, security and nuclear weapons.

On July 23, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer presented a parliamentary appeal ‘Turn Back the Doomsday Clock’ to a plenary session of the NPT Prep Com with nine concrete proposals directed to both the NPT Prep Com and the UN Summit of the Future. One of the proposals calls on governments “cut nuclear weapons budgets and public investments in the nuclear weapons industry, and to re-purpose these resources to instead support public health, peace, climate stabilization and sustainable development.”

More than 80 parliamentarians from 35 legislatures endorsed the appeal, including members of foreign affairs and defence committees; parliamentary delegates to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, NATO Parliamentary Assembly and OSCE Parliamentary Assembly; former Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Disarmament; and others.

A similar appeal from faith-based organizations and leaders, entitled Pursuing Peace, Security and Nuclear Disarmament through our Common Humanity, was also presented at the NPT plenary session on July 23 by Ayleen Roy, a member of the Transnational working group on faith and values based perspectives. The appeal, which was endorsed by more than 80 faith-based organizations and an additional 180 faith and values based leaders and individuals, highlights principles common to all the world’s major religious and faith-based traditions that are relevant to peace, security and nuclear weapons.

Citing the faith-based principle of social responsibility, the appeal notes that “The €90 billion equivalent spent each year on nuclear weapons development, production and deployment is draining resources (human and financial) that are required to eliminate world poverty and achieve the SDGs” and encourages “States to acknowledge their social responsibility by ending investments in nuclear weapons and re-purposing these investments to address basic human needs.”

And in preparation for the UN Summit of the Future, civil society organizations from around the world, cooperating through the facilitation of the Coalition for the UN We Need, have released a Peoples Pact for the Future with a number of recommendations to the Summit of the Future, one of which calls for a commitment to be made at the Summit “to channel domestic and other funds currently utilized for weapons—including nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction—to peaceful use such as environmental protection, sustainable development, peacemaking, rehabilitation, restorative justice, reparations, and building a culture of peace.”

Member organizations of Move the Nuclear Weapons Money were amongst the leaders of these initiatives.

Parliamentarians are also taking actions in their own legislatures to cut nuclear weapons budgets, but these are mostly actions that have not yet received sufficient support to be adopted.

On June 24, for example, US Senator Ed Markey who serves as Co-President of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (PNND) and as Co-chair of the bicameral Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group (NWAC), organized a joint letter from NWAC members to the Secretary of Defense, challenging the US Sentinel Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) replacement program on both financial and policy grounds. The legislators wrote to “remind the DoD that the American people have not granted them a blank check to pursue wasteful, unnecessary programs. As a varied group, our positions on the overall nuclear posture may vary, but we all share a common commitment to preventing government waste, avoiding dangerous nuclear escalation, and promoting peace.”

There are growing calls amongst security experts and civil society organizations for a retirement of all ICBMs in order to cut the bloated nuclear weapons budget and reduce the risks of nuclear war. See, for example, Slash the Pentagon Budget in Half & Abolish ICBMs: Dan Ellsberg on How to Avoid Nuclear Armageddon.

Senator Markey has given voice in the US Congress to these calls in a number of ways including in the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditure (SANE) Act and the Invest in Cures Before Missiles (ICBM) Act that he has introduced, and in direct challenges to nuclear weapons budget items during the Defence Budget Authorization process. See Senator Markey: Shift funds from the military to climate action. And end the nuclear threat!

However, Markey and the Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group are opposed by a powerful nuclear arms industry lobby and the many legislators whom they support in congress, including members of the the bi-partisan Missile Defence Caucus. See Meet the Senate nuke caucus, busting the budget and making the world less safe. The efforts of Senator Markey and his colleagues are unlikely to succeed in deep cuts to the US nuclear weapons budget unless there is a stronger groundswell of Americans pushing their elected representatives to support their legislative initiatives.

Over in the UK, the possibilities for cutting the nuclear weapons budget do not appear to have improved with the election of a Labour government. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has affirmed that his government is committed to a triple lock for nuclear deterrence, which includes maintaining Britain’s continuous at-sea deterrent (CASD) “24 hours a day, 365 days a year”; building four new nuclear submarines; and delivering “all the needed upgrades” for existing and new submarines in the future. However, there could be dissention to this from some Labour MPs and from the increased number of Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons. (See Reality check: is Keir Starmer’s triple lock on nuclear weapons anything new?)

August 25, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A new French fairy tale: “Cheap” nuclear electricity in France is not what it appears.

The French public are paying for their nuclear addiction — and will pay even more when the plants need decommissioning. 

By Axel Mayer, 11 Sept 23,  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/09/11/a-new-french-fairy-tale/—

“Bread and games”(Panem et circenses) were the enforcement strategies in the Roman Empire to maintain power. “Cheap petrol, cheap electricity and football” are popular campaign strategies under a democracy, says Axel Mayer, Vice-President of the Trinational Nuclear Protection Association (TRAS).

In France, the nuclear industry is in decline and the nuclear company EDF is heavily in debt. At the same time, President Macron is once again promising cheap nuclear power and wants to have new small nuclear power plants built. A small part of the French nuclear industry’s financial problems is to be solved with EU money.

In this context, the fairy tale of cheap French nuclear power is happily spread in France and also in Germany and the use of nuclear energy is praised as the miracle weapon in the losing war against nature and the environment. However, the price of electricity in France is only apparently cheap.

According to a report of the supreme audit court in France, the research and development, as well as the construction of the French nuclear power plants, cost a total of 188 billion euros. Since in France the “civilian” and the military use of nuclear power cannot be separated, the sum is probably much higher. Retrofitting France’s outdated reactors will cost over 55 billion euros. Liberation magazine reports retrofitting costs of nearly 100 billion euros by 2030.

People of France are paying for expensive nuclear power with their taxes

According to a report by the French Ministry of Economy, the semi-state-owned EDF had debts of about 41 billion euros at the end of 2019, an amount that is expected to be nearly 57 billion euros by 2028. To avoid domestic political problems, EDF is not allowed to raise the price of electricity for political reasons. EDF liabilities are driving up France’s national debt massively. The people of France (and especially their grandchildren) are paying for the seemingly cheap, but in reality expensive nuclear power with their taxes.

This cost does not include the dismantling of the nuclear power plants or any costs of a severe accident. A serious nuclear accident would have devastating consequences in France. A government study estimates the cost at 430 billion euros.

Demolition costs of over 100 billion euros

In France, EDF operates 56 outdated reactors that are now becoming old and decrepit almost simultaneously, but the company has built up almost no reserves for decommissioning. In Germany, the government is very optimistic about a 47 billion euros cost for decommissioning and final storage. The decommissioning of the large number of French nuclear power plants could cost well over 100 billion euros as costs rise, if no savings are made on safety. There is a distinct possibility that the nuclear industry could bankrupt the French state even without a nuclear accident that could happen at any time.

A “European Pressurized Water Reactor” (EPR) has been under construction on France’s Atlantic coast in Flamanville since 2007. The flagship project was originally scheduled for completion in 2012 at a fixed price of 3.2 billion euros. Since then, the start of operation has been postponed again and again, and the Court of Auditors now puts the cost at over 19 billion euros. Whether the EPR can go online in 2024 is questionable. The model reactor will never work economically.

In countries with a functioning market, no new nuclear power plants are building

Swiss nuclear lobbyist and Axpo CEO Christoph Brand puts the kibosh on dreams of cheap nuclear power from new, small nuclear plants. “The production costs for the electricity supplied by new nuclear power plants are currently about twice as high as those of larger wind and solar plants,” Brand said. “No matter how one assesses the risks of nuclear power, it is simply not economical to rely on new nuclear plants,” he said in the pro-nuclear NZZ on Oct. 21, 2021.

In countries with a functioning market, no new nuclear power plants are being built. When in doubt, it always helps to look at EDF’s share price, which has fallen massively over the long term, to assess the market chances of the nuclear renaissance announced by President Macron.

“Bread and games” with artificially low nuclear electricity prices can work in election campaigns. Low-cost, risk-free electricity is generated today with photovoltaics and wind energy. (AM/hcn)

August 24, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics, Reference | Leave a comment

Nuclear unicorn Newcleo to move holding company from UK to France to tap EU funds

The move comes as the startup targets a €1bn equity round

Sifted Kai Nicol-Schwarz, 21 Aug 24

Nuclear power startup Newcleo is moving its holding company from the UK to France, as the company looks to tap EU funding pools in its bid to raise a €1bn equity round. 

Newcleo said in its annual accounts, released yesterday, that it had announced to shareholders and employees in January that it was making the move to increase the potential of attracting “significant funding from EU financial institutions”. 

“While we are moving the location of our holding company, our plans for the UK are unchanged and we remain committed to investing and building next-generation SMRs to generate electricity for the UK grid and industry,” a Newcleo spokesperson told Sifted. Sifted understands that the move would not involve employees relocating.

………………………………………………………….  founder and CEO Stefano Buono told Sifted in May that the company would need to raise billions more if it’s to realise its ambitions of building a revenue-making commercial reactor by the early 2030s. 

Newcleo is hoping French and EU institutional funding can help it get there. “The rationale for the restructure is partly to improve the potential to attract funding from French and other EU financial institutions in the future,” the company said in its accounts. 

French government-funded investment bank Bpifrance has “strict” requirements on holding companies being based in the country, explains Tommy Stadlen, cofounder and partner at Giant Ventures.

………………………………..Newcleo’s average monthly cash burn is €13m for the first half of 2024 and it made a loss of €57.5m in 2023 — up from €18.1m in 2022 — according to its accounts. The company had €221m of cash in the bank on 30 June 2024.
https://sifted.eu/articles/nuclear-newcleo-raise-startup-france

August 23, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Final investment decision on new nuclear plant Sizewell C is delayed

The crucial final investment decision (Fid) for the new nuclear power
plant Sizewell C is unlikely to be agreed until 2025, according to recent
reports. Financial sector publication Bloomberg reported that anonymous
sources close to the project said negotiations between potential private
investors were moving more slowly than had been expected.

The Fid had already been delayed by the general election, but new energy secretary Ed
Miliband indicated his support for Sizewell in an early speech to
parliament before the 2024 summer recess. Bloomberg reported negotiations
with Centrica, Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation, Amber Infrastructure
Group and Schroders Greencoat are ongoing.

Earlier in July, Centrica chiefnexecutive officer Chris O’Shea said: “An investment decision this year would be dependent upon how the government and the Sizewell company want to
move. “We are able to move as quickly as the other parties, but I think
we should be realistic that the government have been in office less than
three weeks and they need to figure out what they want to do.”

 New Civil Engineer 20th Aug 2024

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/sizewell-c-final-investment-decision-unlikely-before-2024-year-end-20-08-2024/

August 23, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

How US Big Tech monopolies colonized the world: Welcome to neo-feudalism

US Big Tech corporations are like the feudal landlords of medieval Europe. These Silicon Valley monopolies own the digital land that the global economy is built on, and are charging higher and higher rents to use their privatized infrastructure.

GeoPoliticalEconomy, By Ben Norton, 19 Aug 24

US Big Tech corporations have essentially colonized the world. In almost every country on Earth, the digital infrastructure upon which the modern economy was built is owned and controlled by a small handful of monopolies, based largely in Silicon Valley.

This system is looking more and more like neo-feudalism. Just as the feudal lords of medieval Europe owned all of the land and turned almost everyone else into serfs, who broke their backs producing food for their masters, the US Big Tech monopolies of the 21st century act as corporate feudal lords, controlling all of the digital land upon which the digital economy is based.

Every other company – not just small businesses, but even relatively large ones – must pay rent to these corporate feudal lords.

Amazon takes more than 50% of the revenue of the sellers on its platform, according to a study by the e-commerce intelligence firm Marketplace Pulse.

Amazon’s cut of vendor revenue steadily rose from roughly 35% in 2016 to just over half as of 2022.

In fact, Amazon basically sets prices in markets by using its infamous “buy box”. The platform removes the button if a user sells a product at a price higher than those offered on competing websites. The result: 82-90% of sales on Amazon end up using the buy box.

Neoclassical economists endlessly condemned the inefficiencies of the central planning of the Soviet Union, but apparently have little to say about the de facto price setting being done by neo-feudal corporate monopolies like Amazon.

A monopolist in the 20th century would have loved to control a country’s supply of, say, refrigerators. But the Big Tech monopolists of the 21st century go a step further and control all of the digital infrastructure needed to buy those fridges — from the internet itself to the software, cloud hosting, apps, payment systems, and even the delivery service.

These corporate neo-feudal lords don’t just dominate a single market or a few related ones; they control the marketplace. They can create and destroy entire markets.

Their monopolistic control extends well beyond just one country, to almost the entire world.

If a competitor does manage to create a product, US Big Tech monopolies can make it disappear.

Imagine you are an entrepreneur. You develop a product, make a website, and offer to sell it online. But then you search for it on Google, and it does not show up. Instead, Google promotes another, similar product in the search results.

This is not a hypothetical; this already happens.

Amazon does exactly the same: It promotes Amazon Prime products at the top of its search results. And when a product sells well, Amazon sometimes copies it, makes its own version, and threatens to put the original vendor out of business.

As Reuters reported in 2021, “A trove of internal Amazon documents reveals how the e-commerce giant ran a systematic campaign of creating knockoff goods and manipulating search results to boost its own product lines”. This happened in India, but vendors in other countries have accused Amazon of doing the same.

Toy salesman Molson Hart produced a fascinating documentary that illustrates Amazon’s dystopian monopoly power.

Amazon is more powerful than any 19th-century robber baron could have imagined. It charges exorbitant fees to vendors that sell goods on its platform (goods that Amazon had nothing to do with creating), and can copy their product and make its own version if it looks profitable.

This problem goes much deeper than Amazon. Apple, the largest company on Earth by market capitalization (with a $3.41 trillion market cap as of August 1, 2024), uses many of the same tactics as Amazon.

While Amazon extracts more than 50% of the revenue of the sellers who use its platform, it can at least try to justify this by arguing that these exorbitant fees include the costs of advertising and “fulfillment” (ie, storage, processing, delivery, etc.).

Apple, on the other hand, charges a staggering 30% fee on all purchases done in apps that are downloaded using the iOS store.

In other words, if a user of an iPhone, iPad, or Mac download an app for a third party through the App Store, Apple requires 30% rent for the business done by those other companies. This is despite the fact that Apple has nothing to do with that business. The other firms manage the commerce and maintain their apps; Apple is the neo-feudal lord demanding its tribute.

In an absolutely scandalous announcement in August, the crowd-funding website Patreon revealed in August that the neo-feudal corporate landlords at Apple are taking a 30% cut of all new memberships registered using the iOS app.

Apple is not providing any service, other than allowing people to download an app that it itself does not manage. All Apple does is host the app, nothing more. It is a digital landlord. But because it has a monopoly, Apple can take 30% of the revenue that creators on Patreon receive for all of our hard work…………………………………………………………………………………………..

It all started with Big Tech corporations first offering supposedly “free” services (which were paid for by selling users’ information). Those “free” platforms soon became monopolies, and were so deeply embedded into the economy that they became digital utilities, albeit privatized ones.

A 20th-century economy needed utilities like an electrical grid, water plants, sewage system, highways, etc. These natural monopolies should be publicly owned, provided by the state as public goods, in order to prevent rent-seeking by corporate landlords. (Of course, neoliberals have long sought to privatize these public utilities as well, and have had success in some countries — with inevitably disastrous results, like sky-high bills and sewage being dumped into the UK’s privatized water system.)

A 21st-century economy needs all of those basic utilities plus new digital infrastructure. But here’s the thing: all of the necessary digital infrastructure that our economies are built on is privatized! You have internet providers, Microsoft Windows, iOS, Apple Store, Play Store, Google, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Apple Pay, Google Pay, etc.

Then there is the cloud infrastructure that apps and websites use, which is dominated by a few mostly US companies. Amazon Web Services (AWS) had 31% of global market share as of the first quarter of 2024, followed by 25% for Microsoft Azure, and 11% for Google Cloud……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

If you want to make a small business, you will almost certainly go bankrupt very quickly if you don’t use Amazon to sell your product; Apple’s App Store or Google Play Store to download your app; Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube to market your good or service; or WhatsApp to make an order (especially in many Global South countries, where WhatsApp is more common than in the US). None of this is to even mention private ISPs for an internet connection, or private telecommunications companies that charge high data fees.

If your company makes an app that is not available in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store, you might as well not exist. Good luck getting the vast majority of your customer base to download it…………………………………………………………………………………………..

These Big Tech monopolists are really digital landlords. They own the land upon which the rest of the digital economy is built. They are the 21st-century version of the feudal lords of Medieval Europe, who owned the land upon which serfs toiled.

Now these neo-feudal corporate landlords are charging more and more fees to use their “free” infrastructure.

This digital infrastructure should be nationalized and treated as a public good, like other basic utilities (which should also be nationalized if they have been privatized, which was increasingly the case in the neoliberal era).

This is global monopoly capitalism…………………………………………………………………………………….

Economist Yanis Varoufakis has referred to this system as “technofeudalism”, in his 2024 book with this title. Although I sometimes disagree with Varoufakis, especially in terms of his criticism of China, I do largely share his analysis of technofeudalism.

Varoufakis is also absolutely right that one of the factors driving Washington’s new cold war on Beijing is the desire by US Big Tech monopolies to destroy their only competitors, which happen to be Chinese. ………………………….

This observation by Varoufakis hits the nail on the head. Where I think he is wrong is in his claim that China, like the US, is becoming techno-feudal.

There is a fundamental distinction between the two: In the US, capital controls the state; in China, the state controls capital.

In China’s unique system, which it refers to as a socialist market economy and “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”, roughly a third of GDP comes from massive state-owned enterprises (SOEs), which are concentrated in the most strategic sectors of the economy, such as banking, construction, infrastructure, transportation, and telecommunications.

While it is true that many technology companies in China are private on paper, the reality is much more complicated. The Chinese government has a powerful “golden share” (officially known as a “special management share”) in large firms, such as Alibaba and Tencent, which gives it veto power over important decisions.

Although these large technology companies may not be full state-owned, China’s socialist government ensures that they act in the interest of the country and the people, not simply wealthy shareholders.

The US system is exactly the opposite. Large corporations control the government, and create policy on behalf of wealthy shareholders.

The problem is not just that US corporate monopolies control markets; they create those markets themselves, through their control over digital infrastructure.

As Varoufakis has observed in his discussion of “cloud capital”, Amazon does not just dominate the market; it creates markets — and prevents any potential competitors from creating alternative markets………………………………………………

In the 21st century, the infrastructure of society itself has been privatized.

The solution is clear: the digital infrastructure upon which the modern economy is built must be nationalized and turned into public utilities, like water, electricity, and highways.

That said, the US government nationalizing Silicon Valley Big Tech companies does not solve the problem of the lack of digital sovereignty in other countries.

If Amazon, Apple, Google, and Meta are nationalized, this would still mean the United States has enormous power over nations whose economies rely on this US-controlled digital infrastructure (which, again, is almost all nations everywhere, with the noble exception of China)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

This is a serious problem that should be debated worldwide. There are likely some potential creative solutions………….. https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2024/08/19/us-big-tech-monopolies-neo-feudalism/

August 21, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics international | Leave a comment

German ministers told there’s no more money for Ukraine – media

 https://www.rt.com/news/602719-germany-no-money-ukraine-aid/ 17 Aug 24

Berlin could halve its military assistance to Kiev in 2025, the newspaper claims

German Finance Minister Christian Lindner has issued a request to the country’s defense ministry calling for a limit to military assistance to Ukraine, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported on Saturday. According to Lindner, the country’s current budget plan is not capable of allocating funds to Kiev.

The request was made in a letter addressed to German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, and specified that only military aid that has already been approved can be delivered to Kiev. Additional applications from the defense ministry will no longer be accepted, even if issued at the behest of Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

FAZ noted that the block on newly approvals is already in effect and that Berlin would halve its military aid to Ukraine next year. In 2027, the assistance is expected to decline to less than one tenth of its current volume.

Up to €8 billion in aid to Ukraine has been scheduled for 2024, and the planned maximum of €4 billion for 2025 already exceeds available funds, the media outlet noted, adding that only €3 billion is planned for 2026, and €500 million each for 2027 and 2028.

“End of the event. The pot is empty,” an unnamed source in the federal government told FAZ, stressing that Berlin has “reached a point where Germany can no longer make any promises to Ukraine.”

The newspaper noted that the urge comes amid Lindner’s push for harsh austerity measures; these have already been imposed on all German ministries except defense. The finance minister has been resisting intense pressure from Scholz and Economy Minister Robert Habeck to suspend the country’s constitutional limit on debt to allow for the cost of providing military aid to Kiev amid the Ukrainian conflict.

Germany is the second biggest backer of Ukraine after the US. Berlin has provided and committed military aid of at least €28 billion ($30.3 billion) to Kiev in current and future pledges. This includes advanced military equipment such as Leopard 2 tanks, Marder infantry fighting vehicles, and US-made Patriot air-defense systems.

Lindner reportedly doesn’t expect the country’s assistance to Ukraine to drop, as the minister hopes to cover the expenses not with federal budget funds, but through the use of Russian central bank assets that were frozen by Kiev’s Western allies shortly after the conflict escalated.

Nearly $300 billion belonging to Russia’s central bank has been immobilized by the EU and G7 nations as part of Ukraine-related sanctions. In May, Brussels approved a plan to use the interest earned on the frozen assets to support Ukraine’s recovery and defense. Under the agreement, 90% of the proceeds are expected to go into an EU-run fund for Ukrainian military aid, with the other 10% allocated to supporting Kiev in other ways.

August 19, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Germany, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Sizewell C funding decision may not be made this year

19 July 2024, Ben Parker & Alice Cunningham,  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2x0k87z400o

An investment decision into Sizewell C in Suffolk may not be made this year by the new Labour government.

The previous Conservative-led government said it would secure funding this year for the power plant and £2.5bn has already been spent on the project.

Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said she hoped ministers were taking the time to “reconsider their support”.

A spokesperson for Sizewell said the project was progressing while the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said the government was committed to the project but did not comment on when a decision on the funding would be made when asked by the BBC.

………………………………….The official cost of Sizewell C has been put at £20bn and the project will be partly funded by French energy company EDF.

Ms Downes said she felt by the time Sizewell C was built, it would be too late to tackle the climate emergency.

“Given that Sizewell C cannot in any way help the new government achieve its target of a net zero grid by 2030, we very much hope Ministers are taking the time to seriously reconsider their support,” she said.

“Not only would it be too late to help our climate emergency, this project would increase household bills throughout construction and beyond, and suck billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money away from other urgent priorities.

“Doubling down on the £2.5 billion already spent would be just throwing good money after bad.”

Building permission for the project has already been granted and if funding is secured, construction could take about 12 years.

August 19, 2024 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

6 Billionaire Fortunes Bankrolling Project 2025

More than $120 million from a few ultra-wealthy families has powered the Heritage Foundation and other groups that created the plan to remake American government.

DeSmog, ByJoe Fassler, Aug 14, 2024

Since 2020, donor networks linked to just six family fortunes have funneled more than $120 million into Project 2025 advisory groups, a DeSmog analysis has found. 

More than 100 nonprofits led by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank that has engaged in climate change denial and obstruction for decades, have signed on as advisors to the Project 2025’s 900-page “Mandate for Leadership” document — a plan to rapidly “reform,” or radically alter, the U.S. government by shuttering bureaus and offices, overturning regulations, and replacing thousands of public sector employees with hand-picked political allies. 

In its official Project 2025 materials, Heritage Foundation leadership repeatedly draws attention to the size and diversity of its advisory board, suggesting that its numerous “coalition partners” are part of a broad, “movement-wide effort” representing a variety of independent viewpoints.  

“Project 2025 is unparalleled in the history of the conservative movement—both in its size and scope but also for organizing [so many] different groups under a single banner,” the organization wrote in an October 2023 press release. 

But an analysis of financial disclosure forms shows the same small group of donors supporting Project 2025’s advisors again and again — hardly a sign of ideological diversity. Of the 110 nonprofits formally supporting Project 2025, almost 50 received major donations from the same six sources of wealth since 2020.

Many of the organizations the six families funded also have close ties to Donald Trump and his running mate, Ohio Senator JD Vance, DeSmog found. Trump has repeatedly denied involvement in or knowledge of Project 2025, though that position conflicts with a growing number of news reports — a disavowal made more awkward by the fact that Vance wrote the forward to Dawn’s Early Light, a forthcoming book by Heritage Foundation president Kevin D. Roberts that describes his Project 2025 vision. DeSmog’s review of Project 2025’s financial backers found additional links to Trump, Vance, and key figures in their orbit that had not been previously known. 

These six donor networks, linked to the family fortunes of a handful of wealthy industrialists, have spent years working to loosen environmental regulations and promote climate change denial. Though Heritage describes Project 2025 as a mainstream effort to “return government to the people,” its funding sources suggest something far less populist: a vehicle for the obsessions of ultra-rich donors on the far-right fringe, pushing an agenda to reshape American democracy and overturn regulations needed to maintain a livable climate.

Representatives from the six donor networks did not respond to DeSmog’s outreach on this story. The Heritage Foundation did not reply to a request for comment. 

The Coors Family 

At least $2.7 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020 …………………………………………………………..

Charles G. Koch 
At least $9.6 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020 ……………………………………………

Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein
At least $13 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020

The Uihleins are co-founders of Uline, a company that sells shipping and packing supplies — including its ubiquitous brand of cardboard boxes — and other bulk business goods. ……………………………………………………………..

The Scaife Family
At least $21.5 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020

Richard Mellon Scaife died in 2014, but his contribution to conservative causes is still felt today. ……………………………………………………………..

Barre Seid
At least $22.4 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020

The enigmatic industrialist Barre Seid primarily built his fortune through his company Tripp Lite, an electronics manufacturer specializing in surge protectors…………………………………………………………….

The Bradley Family 
At least $52.9 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020 

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation was originally established in 1942 by brothers Lynde and Harry Bradley, founders of the Allen-Bradley company, which made its fortune manufacturing a wide range of electronic products. Their descendants have continued to financially support the foundation for years to come, including with a reported $200 million gift in 2015. 

But it was Michael W. Grebe, who served as CEO of the foundation between 2002 and 2016, who cemented its reputation as a conservative powerhouse, steering donations to a network of activist organizations like The Heritage Foundation, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, and the Heartland Institute (all Project 2025 coalition partners). The current chairman is James Arthur “Art” Pope, CEO of the North Carolina grocery chain Variety Wholesalers, a longtime Koch ally. …………………………………………more https://www.desmog.com/2024/08/14/project-2025-billionaire-donor-heritage-foundation-donald-trump-jd-vance-charles-koch-peter-coors/

August 19, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s plan to buy Russian-made nuclear reactors sparks uproar

Lawmakers argue buying aging atomic energy equipment from Bulgaria won’t help keep the lights on and could fuel corruption.

Politico, August 15, 2024 , By Gabriel Gavin

Ukraine’s government is fighting off growing opposition to a multimillion-dollar scheme to buy mothballed nuclear reactors, facing accusations that officials are opening the door to corruption just as they push to clean up the country’s energy sector.

The government wants to bring two new units online at the Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Station in Western Ukraine, arguing they will help shore up the country’s energy grid that Russian bombs have decimated. The quickest and fastest way to do so, they argue, is to buy Russian-made reactors currently sitting in storage in Bulgaria at an estimated cost of $600 million.

But the deal needs lawmakers’ sign-off, and several parliamentarians — including at least one from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s own party — are alleging the deal could blow a massive hole in the country’s tattered budget for outdated technology that won’t necessarily help Ukrainians stave off looming blackouts.

………………………………………The row has created another point of contention as Ukraine tries to crack down on corruption in its energy sector. Earlier this week, Galushenko’s deputy minister, Oleksandr Kheil, was arrested over allegations he pushed for a bribe of half a million dollars in exchange for transferring coal mining equipment belonging to a state enterprise. 

Zhupanyn and his colleagues claim the Russian nuclear reactor purchase will become another venue for such dodgy dealing.

“In the last 10 years, there have been many criminal cases against people using tenders to extract cash from Ukraine’s state nuclear power company,” he said in an interview. “If you allow them to spend billions of hryvnia on this, you can expect a pipeline of criminal cases in the next 10 years.”

Galuschenko denied accusations the government was withholding information…………………………………….

“There are a lot of MPs from basically all factions that are not supporting it,”  Yaroslav Zheleznyak, an economist and MP from Ukraine’s liberal Holos party, told POLITICO following the meeting on Tuesday. “We are concerned about corruption in this procurement process and we have not received any explanations.”………………………………………………………………………..

Ukrainian energy and environment NGO Ekodiya has also raised concerns about the proposals for Khmelnytskyi, arguing that the project would rely on “obsolete Russian-made equipment” and that “the use of outdated technology can lead to serious safety and efficiency problems.”

Instead, the group argues, the better investment would be in smaller electricity-generating facilities, including renewables, distributed across a wider area. Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, the chief executive of state power firm Ukrenergo, told POLITICO earlier this year that building a broad green energy network would make the grid less susceptible to Russian attacks………………………………………..  https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-buy-russia-made-nuclear-reactor-uproar-war-corruption/

August 18, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »