Elon Musk Demands Pentagon Foot Starlink-Ukraine Bill After Being Told To ‘F**k Off’
Starlink is essential to the Ukrainian military, and one would suspect that the Pentagon would pick up the tab if US’ proxy war against Russia wants to be successful.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/musk-cant-fund-starlink-ukraine-spacex-letter-reveals-request-pentagon-funding BY TYLER DURDEN, 15 Oct 22, Elon Musk’s SpaceX has been generous in providing free Starlink satellite internet terminals for Ukraine’s military to boost communication channels as the war enters its eighth month.
Musk recently tweeted the Ukrainian “operation has cost SpaceX $80 million and will exceed $100 million by the end of the year.” But those charitable donations of more than 20,000 Starlink terminals (and counting…) have just come to an abrupt end. CNN obtained a new letter that SpaceX sent the Pentagon, warning about the need for funding to maintain the service in the war-torn country, which costs upwards of $20 million per month (and most of it has been footed by SpaceX).
The letter continued with the need for the Pentagon to take over Starlink’s expenses. In the next 12 months, Starlink forecasted the service would cost upwards of $400 million.
“We are not in a position to further donate terminals to Ukraine, or fund the existing terminals for an indefinite period of time,” SpaceX’s director of government sales wrote in the letter.
Musk on Friday confirmed the letter as he responded to a Kyiv Post journalist on Twitter, saying he only followed the advice of a Ukrainian diplomat who told him to “F*** off.”
Musk also said: “Starlink is still losing money … goal is “not to go bankrupt.”
The letter comes after reports of widespread Starlink outages across Ukraine. The Financial Times reported that Ukrainian troops had experienced issues with their terminals.
CNN said, “sources familiar with the outages said they suddenly affected the entire frontline as it stood on September 30.” Starlink has been the primary communication link on the battlefield since Russia bombed the country’s infrastructure.
SpaceX’s request for funding or it would stop providing free access comes after Musk tweeteed about a controversial peace plan.
Starlink is essential to the Ukrainian military, and one would suspect that the Pentagon would pick up the tab if US’ proxy war against Russia wants to be successful.
Europe is still quietly importing Russian nuclear energy
CNBC, Sam Meredith @SMEREDITH19 14 Oct 22,
- Russia’s nuclear fuel industry remains conspicuously untouched by European sanctions more than seven months into the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine
- Despite eight rounds of sanctions, shipments of nuclear fuel to EU member states continue to make their way from Russia.
- Ariadna Rodrigo, EU sustainable finance manager at environmental group Greenpeace, told CNBC that it is “absolute madness” for the bloc to continue bankrolling the Kremlin by ignoring Russian nuclear trade.
………………………………………………. Russia’s energy influence goes beyond oil and gas
In April, a European Parliament resolution called for an “immediate” embargo on Russian imports of nuclear fuel and urged member states to stop working with Russia’s state-run nuclear giant Rosatom on existing and new projects.
But Russia is a dominant player in the global nuclear fuel market and any move to break the EU’s reliance on its services would likely be far from pain-free, particularly with Rosatom at the heart of Europe’s dependency……………
There are 18 Russian nuclear reactors in Europe, in countries including Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. All of these reactors rely on Rosatom for the supply of nuclear fuel and other services.
Underlining the scale of Russia’s nuclear energy influence in some member states, even as the Kremlin’s onslaught in Ukraine continues, Hungary in late August announced the construction of two new nuclear reactors by Rosatom.
Moscow accounted for almost one-fifth (19.7%) of the EU’s uranium imports last year, according to the latest available data from the Euratom Supply Agency. Only Niger (24.3%) and former Soviet republic Kazakhstan (23%) were bigger suppliers of uranium to the bloc. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/14/ukraine-war-europe-is-still-quietly-importing-russian-nuclear-energy.html
Joshua Frank’s book Atomic Days shows the nuclear industry’s only real role – it is essential for the USA’s ‘permanent war economy’
As the atomic energy business is increasingly priced out of the electricity market by wind, solar, batteries, and increased efficiency and conservation, we will likely see the nuclear power industry increasingly admitting to what it always was — a necessary servant of the nuclear weapons industry.
Nuclear Power Isn’t Clean — It Creates Hellish Wastelands of Radioactive Sewage, Harvey Wasserman, Truthout October 12, 2022,
“……………………………..To put the nuclear power industry in a larger context, Frank guides us through the “permanent war economy” birthed during WWII, and discusses Franklin Roosevelt’s ambivalent relations with the “Malefactors of Great Wealth” who often stood in the way of making the U.S. the “Arsenal of Democracy,” and who once even plotted to kill him.
With the decision to build an A-Bomb, the giant Bechtel Corporation used the 120-square-mile reservation at Hanford to produce 103.5 metric tons of plutonium, perhaps the deadliest substance known to humanity.
But there was no effective solution for what might happen to the place in the aftermath. The Waste Treatment Plant meant to “vitrify” rad wastes into glass began construction in 2002, with plans to open in 2011. It has become, in both cost and area, “the largest single construction operation taking place anywhere in the United States,” now with an estimated price tag of $41 billion and a projected opening in 2036.
With “a string of bungled jobs under its belt,” Bechtel’s failed “Big Dig” in Boston — a much-vaunted tunnel from Logan Airport to downtown — reflected its work at Hanford when a collapse killed a 39-year-old woman and resulted in $357.1 million settlement exempting management from criminal prosecution.
As the U.S.’s fourth-largest privately held company, Bechtel spending $1.8 million on D.C. lobbying in 2019-20 was par for the course. The payback, Frank writes, comes in the tragic diseases suffered by Hanford workers like Abe Garza and Lawrence Rouse, usually amid terse, well-funded official denials. Researchers like Karen Wetterhahn and veterans like Victor Skaar have joined Vietnam victims of Agent Orange in being victimized by exposures they were repeatedly assured were “safe.” Whistleblowers like Ed Bricker were even subjected to intense spying and sabotage by close associates he was deceived into accepting as friends.
Meanwhile activists like Russell Jim of the Yakama Tribe began to force “an immeasurable amount of transparency” around the Hanford disaster. Their decades of hardcore community organizing came with a growing demand for accountability that has changed the political atmosphere surrounding the cleanup.
The debate has carried into the use of commercial atomic power.
Because of Hanford’s nuclear presence, five atomic reactors were constructed in Washington State, promising electricity that would be “too cheap to meter.”
But like the soaring costs of plutonium production and clean-up, the Washington Public Power System plunged into the biggest public bankruptcy in U.S. history, due to massive delays and cost overruns. Only one of the nukes now operates.
Sadly, some self-proclaimed climate activists have fallen into the atomic pit, arguing that in the face of the acute threat of climate change, nuclear power should be pursued as a way to lower emissions.
But they all ignore the big lesson Joshua Frank teaches us about Hanford: All the rhetoric in the world can’t cover for the physical realities of dealing with atomic radiation. And atomic fires burning at 571 degrees Fahrenheit will never cool the planet. The mines, the mills, the fuel fabrication, the reactors themselves, the waste dumps, all that horrendous multitrillion-dollar paraphernalia — they together comprise the most lethal and expensive technological failure in human history.
Many reactor promoters have long vehemently denied any connection between their “peaceful atom” and the scourge of war, but anti-nuclear activists have exposed the falsity of those claims. For example, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a British advocacy organization that opposes both nuclear weapons and the building of new nuclear power facilities, writes:
The civil nuclear power industry grew out of the atomic bomb programme in the 1940s and the 1950s. In Britain, the civil nuclear power programme was deliberately used as a cover for military activities…. The development of both the nuclear weapons and nuclear power industries is mutually beneficial. Scientists from Sussex University confirmed this once again in 2017, stating that the government is using the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to subsidise Trident, Britain’s nuclear weapons system.
As the atomic energy business is increasingly priced out of the electricity market by wind, solar, batteries, and increased efficiency and conservation, we will likely see the nuclear power industry increasingly admitting to what it always was — a necessary servant of the nuclear weapons industry.
Fittingly, the only future for atomic reactors will be as a bottomless pit for ecological suicide and massive public subsidies — exactly like Hanford.
Indeed, for readers truly interested in the future of atomic energy, take a good look at how it plays in Joshua Frank’s Atomic Days. Then ask how soon we can cover the whole damn place with solar panels. https://truthout.org/articles/nuclear-power-isnt-clean-it-creates-hellish-wastelands-of-radioactive-sewage/
Georgia nuclear plant’s cost now forecast to top $30 billion
https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-cost-now-forecast-top-30-billion?fbclid=IwAR3OXo4tKdYJgJPMQxXjl_l4VnbN1cFZkTtiYE7KZ-NEPngOb5_FnB_GpRY May 9, 2022 Associated Press,
A nuclear power plant being built in Georgia is now projected to cost its owners more than $30 billion.
A financial report from one of the owners on Friday clearly pushed the cost of Plant Vogtle near Augusta past that milestone, bringing its total cost to $30.34 billion.
That amount doesn’t count the $3.68 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners after going bankrupt, which would bring total spending to more than $34 billion.
Vogtle is the only nuclear plant under construction in the United States, and its costs could deter other utilities from building such plants, even though they generate electricity without releasing climate-changing carbon emissions.
The latest increase in the budget, by the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, wasn’t a surprise after lead owner Georgia Power Co. announced delays and $920 million in overruns on March 3. Georgia Power’s costs only cover the 45.7% of the plant it owns, meaning that the cooperatives and municipal utilities that own the majority of the two-reactor project later update their financial projections as well.
MEAG, which owns 22.7% of Vogtle and provides power to city-owned utilities, raised its total cost forecast, including capital spending and borrowing costs, to $7.8 billion from the previous level of $7.5 billion.
Oglethorpe Power Corp., which provides power to 38 cooperatives in Georgia, owns 30% of Vogtle. In March bumped up its cost projects by $250 million to $8.5 billion.
The city of Dalton, which owns 1.6%, estimated its cost at $240 million in 2021. It hasn’t released a public update.
The municipal utility in Jacksonville, Florida, as well as some other municipal utilities and cooperatives in Florida and Alabama are obligated to buy power from the plant.
When approved in 2012, the third and fourth reactors were estimated to cost $14 billion, with the first electricity being generated in 2016. Now the third reactor is set to begin operation in March 2023, and the fourth reactor is set to begin operation in December 2023.
Atlanta-based Southern Co., which owns Georgia Power, has been charging increasing shares of its cost overruns as shareholder losses, saying it’s unlikely that the Georgia Public Service Commission will approve adding amounts to the bills of Georgia Power’s 2.6 million customers. But Oglethorpe, MEAG and Dalton don’t have shareholders, meaning customers are fully exposed to overruns.
Georgia Power’s customers, as well as some Oglethorpe customers, are already paying the costs of Vogtle.
To protect themselves, the other owners signed an agreement with Georgia Power in 2018 specifying that if costs reach a certain point, the other owners can choose to freeze their costs at that level. In exchange for paying more of the costs, Georgia Power would own a larger share of the reactors.
Oglethorpe wants to freeze its costs at $8.1 billion, selling 2% of the reactor to Georgia Power in exchange for Georgia Power paying $400 million more in costs. MEAG also said Friday it wants to freeze its costs, but didn’t say how much it sought to shift to Georgia Power.
Southern has acknowledged it will have to pay at least $440 million more to cover what would have been other owners’ costs, and has said another $460 million is in dispute.
Georgia Power is disputing the cost threshold at which it must shoulder more of the burden and saying it shouldn’t have to pay the other owners’ share of extra costs stemming from COVID-19. The owners are in talks aimed at resolving their disagreements.
“Cost sharing is imminent, however, until the parties reach agreement, Oglethorpe will continue to pay its full share of the construction costs as billed by Georgia Power, but will do so under contractual protest,” Oglethorpe CEO Mike Smith said in March.
All the owners did vote to continue construction on Feb. 25. Also, the owners report that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March completed a follow-up inspection of wiring problems at the third reactor and signed off that problems it identified in November had been fixed, returning the reactor to its less intensive baseline inspection regime.
Growing the economy – but growth of what?
Michael Jacobs: Liz Truss dreams of growth – but even if she pulls it off, it won’t help Britain. Fifty years ago, the landmark report The Limits to Growth warned that, unless the composition of growth was
radically changed, its environmental impacts would lead to ecological and social collapse within 100 years.
Many of the projections made by The Limits to Growth have proved prescient. Yet it is also true that developed economies have been able to “uncouple” growth from some environmental
impacts. Over the past 20 years, the UK and others have notably seen rising GDP accompanied by falling greenhouse gas emissions.
Economists have described this as “green growth”, and many have argued that this, rather than growth per se, should be governments’ goal. Some environmentalists argue that environmental sustainability does not allow for any economic growth. Only the “degrowth” of western economies, they claim, is compatible with ecological salvation (and indeed, wellbeing). Others claim that GDP could still grow in a radically greener form. But in present circumstances this is a rather arcane dispute.
Both sides agree that some parts of the economy must degrow, notably the fossil fuel sector and fossil-intensive industries, while growth is clearly needed in others, such as renewable energy and the “care economy” of health, education, social care and childcare. The real question is therefore not “growth or
not?”, but “growth of what?”
Guardian 10th Oct 2022
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/10/liz-truss-dreams-growth-income-stall-gdp
“Pure-play” clean-energy” Brookfield Renewable Partners goes dirty as it partners with Cameco and the nuclear industry
Brookfield Renewable operates one of the world’s largest publicly traded, pure-play renewable power platforms.
Westinghouse Electric, a US nuclear power company, is being bought by a
private equity-backed consortium in a $7.9bn deal four years after it
emerged from bankruptcy, as the war in Ukraine spurs fresh interest in an
industry that had fallen out of investor favour.
Brookfield Renewable Partners, one of the world’s largest clean energy investors, and Cameco,
a supplier of uranium fuel, are buying the company in a bet that climate
and energy security concerns will revive the nuclear sector’s fortunes.
They will purchase the group, which makes technology used in about half the
world’s roughly 440 nuclear reactors, from a separate division of
Brookfield Asset Management that runs its private equity investments. The
sale of Westinghouse represents a large windfall for Brookfield’s private
equity business. It invested $1bn in equity to acquire Westinghouse after
Toshiba, its former owner, put it into bankruptcy in 2017 amid large cost
overruns at projects in Georgia and South Carolina. It will receive roughly
$5.5bn through the sale and dividends.
FT 11th Oct 2022
https://www.ft.com/content/46df2aa9-0963-47a6-881c-f715a18a8527
‘Technology geriatrics’ will not ensure survival of nuclear power, says analyst
Comparing the 2021 trajectory of nuclear power with that of renewable energy, the authors of the report noted that investments in non-hydro renewables totaled $366 billion, which is 15 times more than the investments made for the construction of nuclear power plants, which reached 8.8 GW last year.
The latest World Nuclear Industry Status Report shows that nominal net nuclear generating capacity fell by 0.4 GW between 2020 and 2021, even though six new reactors were switched on throughout the world last year. This brought the share of nuclear power in the global electricity mix to below 10% for the first time in four decades.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/10/07/technology-geriatrics-will-not-ensure-survival-of-nuclear-power-says-analyst/— OCTOBER 7, 2022 EMILIANO BELLINI
The current energy crisis, triggered by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, seems to have given some oxygen to the global nuclear energy industry, with six new reactors going online last year. That compares to none in 2020 and six in 2019.
According to the latest annual edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, published by French nuclear consultant Mycle Schneider, three of the six reactors are located in China and the other three are located in India, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.
“Last year was a bit better in terms of power generation and construction starts,” Schneider told pv magazine. “Six reactors came online in 2021 but the closure decision was taken for ten, two of which did not generate any power since 2018, so in our statistics, they are closed retroactively in 2018.”
He said this slight upward trend cannot be described as a global rebound.
“There were 10 construction starts in 2021, including six in China, and four built by Russia,which is double the five in 2020, including four in China and one by Russia. In the first half of 2022, there were three construction starts in the world, all in China,” he said. “So it looks as if China is increasing construction again. But it is much too early to call this a trend. And outside China, absolutely nothing is happening, except for the few Russian projects – and who knows what impact sanctions will have, even if the nuclear sector is so far excluded.”
Schneider acknowledged that there is huge pressure to extend lifetimes due to the current energy crisis. And there have been some results, like in Belgium and California, for example. But he also said this may not be enough to help the industry recover, with nominal net nuclear electricity generating capacity declining by more than 0.4 GW in the year leading up to 2021.
“Technology geriatrics cannot ensure nuclear power species’ survival,” he said.
In the report, Schneider and his team of experts revealed that there have been 98 startups and 105 closures of nuclear power plants over the past two decades.
“Of these, 50 startups were in China which did not close any reactors,” the team said. “Thus, outside China, there was a net decline by 57 units over the same period; net capacity dropped by 25 GW.”
Currently, there are 411 reactors operating across 33 countries. That’s four units less than last year, seven less than in 1989, and 27 less than the 2002 peak of 438.
“Nuclear production increased by 3.9% in 2021, but remained just below the 2019 level,” the report said. “China produced more nuclear electricity than France for the second year in a row and remains in second place – behind the United States – for the top nuclear power generators.”
Comparing the 2021 trajectory of nuclear power with that of renewable energy, the authors of the report noted that investments in non-hydro renewables totaled $366 billion, which is 15 times more than the investments made for the construction of nuclear power plants, which reached 8.8 GW last year.
The analysts cited recent figures from US-based Lazard showing that between 2009 and 2021, the levelized cost of energy of large-scale solar and wind fell by 90% and 72%, respectively, while that of nuclear power rose by 36%.
“In 2021, wind and solar alone reached a 10.2% share of power generation, the first time, they provided more than 10% of global power and surpassed the contribution of nuclear energy that fell to 9.8%,” they said. “The nuclear share is below 10% for the first time in four decades.”
The report also presents data on individual countries, potential emerging countries, the decommissioning of existing plants, and the current status of the small modular reactor technology. It also includes a chapter on the difficult decommissioning of the Fukushima reactor in Japan and a new section on the vulnerabilities of nuclear reactors during wars.
Maintenance on eight French nuclear reactors delayed by strike
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/maintenance-five-french-nuclear-reactors-delayed-over-strike-2022-10-12/ By Forrest Crellin, 12 Oct 22,
PARIS, (Reuters) – France’s FNME trade union said on Wednesday that some workers at EDF’s (EDF.PA) nuclear plants resumed their strike over salaries, delaying maintenance work on eight reactors as the union sent a message of support to striking refinery workers.
Reporting by Forrest Crellin; Editing by Tomasz Janowski and Elaine Hardcastle
Three of the Cruas nuclear plant’s reactors are affected by the strike, while two reactors at the Cattenom and Tricastin plants and one Bugey reactor have had their maintenance delayed by the strike, FNME said.
EDF nears cut-price deal for GE nuclear turbine unit with Russian contracts
French energy group renegotiates terms for business that also supplies Rosatom
Sarah White in Paris YESTERDAY 6 Print this page French power operator EDF has renegotiated a deal to buy a nuclear turbine maker from General Electric, cutting its offer price for a business seen as strategic for France’s atomic industry but that is exposed to the risk of sanctions because of orders from Russia’s Rosatom. State-controlled EDF, which is on the cusp of being fully renationalised, was encouraged into making a move on the turbine company by the French government in a deal announced by President Emmanuel Macron at the start of the year.
The acquisition was touted as a way of recovering French control of the technology as EDF gears up to build new reactors, while also securing the future of a large factory in eastern France at a time when GE was exploring asset sales and looking to cut jobs. But the business has since been caught up in the fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, even though its dealings with state-owned Rosatom, one of the world’s biggest nuclear plant developers, have not faced sanctions so far………………………. more https://www.ft.com/content/4e3f8a9e-e89c-47c9-9caa-b84825db1e70—
Nuclear share in energy generation falls to lowest in four decades-report
Nuclear share in energy generation falls to lowest in four decades-report | Reuters By Nina Chestney LONDON, Oct 5 (Reuters) – The share of nuclear power in global gross electricity generation fell below 10% last year to the lowest in around four decades, an industry report showed on Wednesday.
Nuclear energy generated 2,653 terawatt hours of electricity last year, accounting for 9.8% of global generation – the lowest since the 1980s, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) showed.
Proponents of nuclear say as a low-carbon power source it could be vital in helping countries meet climate targets, but several plants around the world are coming to the end of their life expectancies and many new ones have faced delays.
The most nuclear power in the world is generated in the United States, followed by China.
As of mid-2022, 411 reactors were operating in 33 countries, four less than a year earlier and 27 below a 2002 peak of 438.
The slow pace of new projects coming on stream has meant the average age of reactors is around 31 years old.
Out of 53 reactors under construction currently, at least half of the projects are delayed. Five new units became operational in the first half of this year, while eight closed last year.
Global investment in new nuclear construction projects last year was around $24 billion, accounting for 6.5% of total investment of $366 billion in non-hydro renewables projects.
Nuclear power is also losing ground to renewables in terms of cost as reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to build.
The levelised cost of energy – which compares the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output – fell to $36 per megawatt hour (MWh) last year for solar photovoltaic from $359/MWh in 2009, while the cost for wind fell to $38/MWh from $135/MWh, the report showed.
However, nuclear power costs rose by 36% last year to $167/MWh from $123/MWh in 2009.
The great ratepayer robbery: how UK new nuclear rips off its customers
the taxpayer will be liable for the inevitable cost overruns and the RAB scheme itself makes it even less likely that developers will keep within the bounds of their agreements, thereby further increasing costs.
decision on Sizewell C as a stitched up deal behind closed doors, bringing extra cost to the consumer, producing unmanageable waste and squandering our capital on a white elephant scheme.
it is criminal that our time and money is wasted and all our futures thrown away on the back of this scam.
How new nuclear rips off its customers
By Linda Clare Rogers
A recent BBC documentary called Big Oil versus the World exposed the excellent job by oil companies in fending off what could have been an existential threat to their future, at the cost of one for the rest of us. The program revealed how the oil industry brought us near to catastrophe while knowingly lying about the role of fossil fuels in creating global warming.
There are vital lessons to be learned from this about the nuclear power industry. As with the oil industry, the nuclear industry continues to mislead us about the need for nuclear power to save the planet, in order to preserve itself. And, like the oil industry, it contributes to the catastrophe of global warming.
Nuclear power stations take too long to build to help mitigate the effects of global warming, and divert money from renewable power and other more immediate means of doing so.
To add insult to injury, we, as taxpayers, are now being asked to contribute to this catastrophe by paying for the building of yet more destructive nuclear power stations. The astronomical cost of nuclear power means that the industry itself can’t and won’t take on the economic risk.
Instead, money taken from our earnings and our benefits (in the U.K, low-income people on Universal Credit are not to be exempted), to set up new nuclear build, is meant to encourage other investors to take the risk in the future. This is before the plants are actually built.
The name of the UK government scheme , or, more accurately, scam, is the Regulated Asset Base model, known as RAB. (Editor’s note: In the U.S., a similar fleecing of ratepayers exists in some states, known as Construction Work In Progress or CWIP.)
In the introduction to RAB — the Ministerial Foreword to the Statement on Procedure and Criteria for Designation — we are told that the government will be taking one nuclear project to Final Investment Decision this parliament and two projects to Final investment Decision in the next parliament, including small modular reactors. The push for this scenario is undermining safety, fleecing the taxpayers at a time of economic crisis, and disregarding the real problems increasingly associated with nuclear power.
The Nuclear Energy Financing Act 2022 implements the nuclear RAB model and is meant to facilitate investment in the design, construction, commissioning and operation of new nuclear energy generation projects.
There are two criteria that government say have to be met in order that a new nuclear power project should receive RAB funding. But both of these criteria are largely meaningless:
Criterion one: the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the development of the relevant nuclear project is sufficiently advanced to justify the designation of the nuclear company in relation to the project, for instance, that the project has received a Development Consent Order (DCO).
Criterion two: the Secretary of State is of the opinion that designating the nuclear company in relation to the project is likely to result in value for money.
The government draft designation document for the two-reactor EDF project at Sizewell C in Suffolk, emphasizes these criteria. To fulfill the first, it is necessary that a DCO is approved, amongst other markers. The DCO contains evidence about the suitability of the proposed site for the project as well as the impact on the local community and its environment.
The Planning Inspectorate have advised that the DCO for Sizewell C be rejected. This in itself is really important news. Those of us who have been fighting against the building of Wylfa B, or Wylfa Newydd, are familiar with this scenario.
The Planning Inspectorate also advised the Secretary of State to reject the DCO application for Wylfa B. Many of the reasons were on similar grounds as those given for the rejection of the application for Sizewell C. The scheme broke habitat regulations and had detrimental impacts on biodiversity and the environment.
Notably, one of the main reasons for the advised rejection of the DCO for Sizewell C was the impact on the local water supply. We need only see what happened in France this past summer, with the shutdown of nuclear power stations due to the overheating of the rivers necessary for the cooling of the plants, to see that issues over water supply will only get worse as climate change gets worse.
So, for RAB funding to be designated, the DCO has to be granted. The Planning Inspectorate recommended it be rejected, and the government went ahead and passed it anyway. This is a profoundly dangerous decision and needs to be fought.
Hard on issuing the DCO will come the designation of RAB funding. The second criterion to allow for this will also be sure to pass: value for money for the taxpayer. The government explains that RAB will be eliminating significant compound interest on capital invested, thus saving us money. It makes the hopeful statement that, “the RAB model has the potential to reduce the financial cost for new nuclear projects, thereby reducing consumer bills while still preserving incentives for the private sector to complete nuclear projects to time and budget”.
Commentators have made it clear that the taxpayer will be liable for the inevitable cost overruns and the RAB scheme itself makes it even less likely that developers will keep within the bounds of their agreements, thereby further increasing costs.
The model has been criticized by two advisory bodies, the Climate Change Committee and the National Infrastructure Commission.
The draft document for the designation of RAB for Sizewell C would be laughable if it were not so serious in its implications and its precedent for further nuclear developments.
Under the heading —Results: Value for Money for Consumers — we are told, “this has been calculated by comparing the cost of the electricity system with and without Sizewell C….. The modelling compares the cost of an electricity system with a RAB funded Sizewell C against two different net zero compliant counterfactuals.” (These latter are the use of renewables and carbon capture and storage.)
It then provides a chart showing the costings and savings for the taxpayer. All that can be seen in each and every box are a row of the letter x. No figures at all.
When the chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, Tom Greatrex, was asked what he knew about the lack of figures available for the Sizewell C agreement on Radio 4, he could give no answer, but offered that RAB was a “different finance mechanism” that would allow for a very predictable price for electricity for a very long time.
This is another example of the nuclear industry and government getting together to present a false narrative: this one uses the present scandal of the cost of energy to persuade us that nuclear power can give us future security and control over future energy supplies.
It should be noted that Hitachi withdrew its application to build Wylfa Newydd for cost reasons, prior to the advised rejection of the DCO. The £5 billion offered by UK government to subsidize building that project was not enough for the Japanese company. This underlines how little risk developers are willing to take and how much risk government is happy to heap on us.
Another major issue with the RAB funding scheme is that, as government documents delicately put it, “the Secretary of State is aware that there could be a perception of a conflict of interest between his role in determining the DCO application for the Sizewell C project and his role in determining whether or not to designate the nuclear company. To avoid any perceived conflict of interest the Secretary of State will delegate the final decision on the DCO to another BEIS minister.”
Well that sorts that problem out then. Of course, while the taxpayer is paying for a nuclear project, it is unlikely to be halted by government. The overriding of the Planning Inspectorate findings against Sizewell C bears this out. How will the government not grant a Final Investment Decision, due next year?
Greenpeace has described the decision on Sizewell C as a stitched up deal behind closed doors, bringing extra cost to the consumer, producing unmanageable waste and squandering our capital on a white elephant scheme.
We say no to nuclear, no to RAB and will be looking to other allies and partners to fight this scheme. Maybe, like the Peace Tax 7, we can find ways to withhold our payments. Perhaps there are legal ways to stop the self -serving deceptions and corruption.
We need to keep calling out the UK government and the Welsh government on these deceptions. When so many people are in fuel poverty and it is so important that the best is made of our precious resources, it is criminal that our time and money is wasted and all our futures thrown away on the back of this scam.
Linda Clare Rogers is a member of People Against Wylfa B and CND Cymru.
NextEra Energy finds that small nuclear reactors (SMRs) really are the biggest boondoggle of all
There were a couple of interesting developments in June in regards to electric power. One was that NextEra Energy issued its Investor Conference Report 2022 to its stockholders. Another was a paper from Stanford University, “Low-cost solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy insecurity for 145 countries,” (LCS study) by Mark Z. Jacobson, et al. Looking into them is rather interesting.
The first of these makes very clear that in the opinions of the people running NextEra Energy, combustion
generating sources and nuclear power are getting too expensive. Furthermore, their opinion is that the most expensive of these, at least in the late 2020s, will be small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).
We should make clear, just in case anyone doesn’t know, that NextEra is hardly anti-nuclear. While it is already the biggest investor in renewable energy in the US, it does own seven nuclear reactors, including the one at Seabrook. Electricity from new, near-firm solar and wind plants is a good deal less expensive than electricity from existing nuclear plants.
Let’s state this clearly: We are paying extra for electricity from nuclear plants, even after they have been paid down, and even though the sun can shine and the wind can blow almost all the time, because of really cheap battery storage. Put another way, it would be cheaper to close the nuclear plants and replace them with new renewable facilities.
Clean Technica 4th Oct 2022 https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/04/why-should-we-pay-extra-for-nuclear-power/
Will Sizewell C nuclear really go ahead? EDF’s €60bn debt, and €52bn costs for French nuclear build.
When EDF board members joined a video call in late August to discuss a landmark UK nuclear project, they were instead treated to a stand-off between the utility’s outgoing boss and the French state. Rather than signing off the Sizewell C plant in Suffolk as Jean-Bernard Lévy had pushed for, the biggest French power producer’s controlling shareholder demanded more time to finish new audit reports and the meeting descended into acrimony, according to people familiar with the discussions.
“Some people didn’t understand what they were doing there and why there wasn’t going to be a decision on anything,” one of the people said. “It was messy.” The episode, one of several clashes at the company to have spilled into the open in recent months, will provide little comfort to Lévy’s successor, Luc Rémont, who is due to take over as chief executive and chair just as Paris executes a plan to buy out the 16 per cent of EDF it does not already own.
While the nationalisation clarifies the ownership structure, the company could still be subject to demands from the French state that have not always been in its immediate interest, including that it shield consumers from soaring energy prices. Big strategic questions on everything from Sizewell to renewable energy investments, meanwhile, still loom large.
Rémont, currently a senior executive at industrial conglomerate Schneider Electric, will need to solve
the group’s short-term problems while also preparing EDF to take on some of France’s biggest nuclear construction projects in two decades — a period when it has struggled to complete any on time or on budget.
The company’s electricity output is on course to reach all-time lows this year, after corrosion problems at the company’s nuclear plants added to maintenance stoppages and led to the outage at one point of more than half the French fleet of 56 reactors. That has strained supplies across Europe just as the region pivots away from Russian gas, while also turning France into a net power importer for the first time.
French officials have so far insisted that the Sizewell C plant in Britain will go ahead, adding that the state had commissioned extra audits simply to calculate the financial consequences of removing a Chinese state-backed company from the project.
But the government may eventually want to revisit some of its choices, bankers and union representatives close to EDF said, particularly as the group grapples with costly investments. By the end of this year, EDF’s
net debt is already forecast to swell to about €60bn, while its French construction programme alone could cost another €52bn.
FT 5th Oct 2022
https://www.ft.com/content/559ce578-fa0d-4bbe-9860-9d512b1510e1
Sizewell C nuclear plan – an insane legacy for our grandchildren
Letter: Dave Haskell, Cardigan: It is the height of madness to fund
another nuclear fission power station at Sizewell costing £34 billion,
with Hinkley C currently costing £24 billion and yet to come on stream.
What a legacy to leave to our children and grandchildren – foreign owned,
very expensive and years to build, dangerous, hazardous waste and
horrendous decommissioning costs – not to mention a potential target for
terrorists.
Cambrian News 1st Oct 2022
https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/news/why-we-must-avoid-using-nuclear-power-565623
Russia’s oil and gas sanctioned, – but its profitable nuclear trade allowed to roll on!
Russia’s nuclear trade with Europe flows despite Ukraine war. European
Union nations are continuing to import and export nuclear fuel that is not
under EU sanctions on Russia. While the European Union has agreed to
curtail its use of Russian oil and gas, its member nations continue to
import and export nuclear fuel that is not under EU sanctions — to the
chagrin of the Ukrainian government and environmental activists.
A cargo ship carrying uranium that departed from the French port of Dunkirk
traveled across the North Sea on Thursday, heading toward the Russian
Baltic port of Ust-Luga. It was the third time in just over a month that
the Panama-flagged Mikhail Dudin ship docked in Dunkirk to transport
uranium from or to Russia.
Environmental group Greenpeace France denounced
the ongoing shipments and called for stopping all trade in nuclear fuel,
which it said was “financing the war in Ukraine, extending (Europe’s)
energy dependence and delaying the transition to renewable energy.” The
EU’s executive arm, the European Commission, did not propose targeting
Russia’s nuclear sector in its latest sanctions package presented
Wednesday.
ABC News 29th Sept 2022
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 (102)
- 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 