nuclear-news

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

America’s new nuclear power industry has a Russian problem

Kitco News Reuters  Friday October 21, 2022,

WASHINGTON/LONDON, Oct 20 (Reuters) – U.S. firms developing a new generation of small nuclear power plants to help cut carbon emissions have a big problem: only one company sells the fuel they need, and it’s Russian.

That’s why the U.S. government is urgently looking to use some of its stockpile of weapons-grade uranium to help fuel the new advanced reactors and kick-start an industry it sees as crucial for countries to meet global net-zero emissions goals.

Production of HALEU is a critical mission and all efforts to increase its production are being evaluated,” a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said……..

without a reliable source of the high assay low enriched uranium (HALEU) the reactors need, developers worry they won’t receive orders for their plants. And without orders, potential producers of the fuel are unlikely to get commercial supply chains up and running to replace the Russian uranium……

The fact that Russia has a monopoly on HALEU has long been a concern for Washington but the war in Ukraine has changed the game, as neither the government nor the companies developing the new advanced reactors want to rely on Moscow.

HALEU is enriched to levels of up to 20%, rather than around 5% for the uranium that powers most nuclear plants. But only TENEX, which is part of Russian state-owned nuclear energy company Rosatom, sells HALEU commercially at the moment.

While no Western countries have sanctioned Rosatom over Ukraine, mainly because of its importance to the global nuclear industry, U.S. power plant developers such as X-energy and TerraPower don’t want to be dependent on a Russian supply chain.

“We didn’t have a fuel problem until a few months ago,” said Jeff Navin, director of external affairs at TerraPower, whose chairman is billionaire Bill Gates. “After the invasion of Ukraine, we were not comfortable doing business with Russia.”

………….. with large-scale projects still challenging for reasons including huge up-front costs, project delays, cost overruns and competition from cheaper energy sources such as wind, several developers have proposed so-called small modular reactors (SMR).

While the SMRs on offer from companies such as EDF (EDF.PA) and Rolls-Royce (RR.L) use existing technology and the same fuel as traditional reactors, nine out of 10 of the advanced reactors funded by Washington are designed to use HALEU…….

Companies in the United States and Europe have plans to produce HALEU on a commercial scale but even in the most optimistic scenarios, they say it would take at least five years from the point they decide to proceed……
“Nobody wants to order 10 reactors without a fuel source, and nobody wants to invest in a fuel source without 10 reactor orders,” said Daniel Poneman, chief executive of U.S. nuclear fuel supplier Centrus Energy Corp (LEU.A)…..

TerraPower, for example, said it will need 15 tonnes of HALEU for the first fuel load of its advanced reactor.

Other potential HALEU producers are further behind.

French state-owned uranium mining and enrichment company Orano says it could start producing HALEU in five to eight years, but will only apply for a production licence once it has customers with long-term contracts.

In a response to a DOE request for information about how to establish a programme to support HALEU production, Orano said it would be down to the U.S. government to kick-start the industry.

“Orano’s assessment shows that the single most important factor enabling success is the DOE guaranteeing a certain volume of demand,” the company said in a statement on its website.

European uranium enrichment company Urenco, meanwhile, says it is considering sites in the United States and Britain for HALEU production but has yet to apply for licences.

CLOCK IS TICKING

For TerraPower and X-energy, which have projects planned in the U.S. states of Wyoming and Washington respectively, the clock is ticking.

Washington awarded them contracts to build two demonstration rectors by 2028 and shared the costs. But without Russian fuel, that deadline will fall well before any alternative commercial suppliers would be up and running.

While the 20% enrichment levels for HALEU are well below the roughly 90% level needed for weapons, companies need special licences to produce it. Additional security and certification requirements are also required for production sites, packaging and transportation of the fuel.

To speed up the process and break the deadlock, the U.S. government is looking to “downblend” weapons-grade highly enriched uranium sitting in its stockpile, though that will also take time…..


The Inflation Reduction Act U.S. President Joe Biden signed in August contained $700 million to secure HALEU supplies from the government and a consortium partnered with the DOE for use in advanced reactors and research.

In September, the White House asked Congress for another $1.5 billion in a temporary government funding bill to boost domestic supply of low enriched uranium and HALEU, to address potential difficulties in accessing Russian fuel.

Lawmakers took the measure out of the bill over concerns about costs, though it remains a priority for some Biden officials, including Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.

Last year, nuclear power stations in the United States imported about 14% of their uranium from Russia, along with 28% of their enrichment services, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Reporting by Sarah McFarlane and Susanna Twidale in London and Timothy Gardner in Washington; Editing by Veronica Brown and David Clarke  https://www.kitco.com/news/2022-10-21/America-s-new-nuclear-power-industry-has-a-Russian-problem.html

October 21, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, Uranium | Leave a comment

The Economics Of European Nuclear Power Don’t Add Up

the French nuclear industry is a basketcase, financially speaking…………  the enormous public as well as private investment involved “will put a heavy burden on the French budget”

Rainer Baake, the managing director of the Climate Neutrality Foundation in Germany, puts it bluntly. “Why would anyone invest in nuclear?” he wonders.

  https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2022/10/21/the-economics-of-european-nuclear-power-dont-add-up/?sh=63eed2ae5d0cChristine Ro, Oct 21, 2022,

There are clear climate and energy security benefits to nuclear power, of course. But Baake says that it’s telling that countries without liberalized markets are the ones mainly investing in new nuclear plants (China domestically and Russia internationally, including in Slovakia and Belarus).

For the huge startup costs and risks make nuclear power financially illogical, according to Baake, who as a politician helped craft a plan for Germany to transition away from nuclear energy.

In European democracies, governments need to be heavily involved in propping up the nuclear industry. And though extensive subsidies have also helped renewable power to expand, renewables are now historically cheap. (They would be even cheaper without old-fashioned wholesale pricing systems based on gas, as in the UK.)

One place that has seen massive reductions in the prices of solar and wind energy is Germany, which has embarked on a double phaseout of nuclear and coal power. After protracted legal and political negotiations, the nuclear phaseout was supposed to have been completed in 2022. But the energy price crisis, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has led to the decision to keep two plants running until at least April 2023.

One of those plants, Neckarwestheim 2, is in the state of Baden-Württemberg. Andre Baumann is the state secretary for the Ministry for the Environment, Climate Protection and Energy Sector in Baden-Württemberg. As he points out, “the sun will not send us an energy bill.” Thanks in part to cheap solar energy, by 2035 the state is expected to produce more energy than it uses. This will involve a rapid ramp-up of supply: “Currently we can’t deliver solar panels and converters fast enough.”

In France, currently half of nuclear power plants are offline. And according to Yves Marignac, who heads the Nuclear and Fossil Energy Unit at the négaWatt Association in France, the French nuclear industry is a basketcase, financially speaking.

For one thing, as with the Olympics, costs for decommissioning always overrun. There’s a “lack of provisions for covering long-term costs,” says Marignac, and French nuclear operators consistently underestimate the expenses. Marignac says that according to global experiences, it currently costs about EUR 1 billion (approx. USD 974 million) to decommission each reactor.

Part of the problem is that the French operators are allowed to factor in just hazy intentions of reusing nuclear materials, which are then excluded from their waste disposal responsibilities. The separated plutonium stockpile is now at 80 tons, according to Marignac, with nuclear companies claiming that they’ll firm up plans for this material in later decades. And plutonium from energy production wouldn’t be practical for military use, Marignac says.

Long-term waste disposal is an even murkier matter. In Switzerland, the government and nuclear operators both contribute to funds for decommissioning and waste disposal. The current financing, of CHF 23.1 billion (roughly the same amount in USD), includes two deep geological repositories, although they wouldn’t even begin operating until at least 2050. The funds wouldn’t need to be paid in until 2100 at the earliest. Even within these nearly-impossible-to-plan-for timeframes, that CHF 23.1 billion is almost certainly a vast underestimate.

As for creating a reactor in the first place, many construction projects never actually make it to the operation stage. There is “virtually no chance of making new reactors profitable under current market conditions,” Marignac asserts.

Indeed, the Swiss energy company Axpo would be uninterested in building new ones if the law there were to change to allow this, while the exhausted German nuclear operators don’t even want an extension of current licenses. Meanwhile, France has green-lit at least six new facilities.

As the enormous public as well as private investment involved “will put a heavy burden on the French budget,” Marignac argues that the French utility EDF needs to be fully nationalized.

What of smaller, less clunky sources of nuclear power: the small modular reactors (SMRs) championed by the likes of Bill Gates? Baake is again characteristically direct regarding SMRs. “There’s only one problem: they don’t exist.”

The obvious question then is what should replace nuclear power, especially in nuclear-dependent countries like France and Bulgaria. The usual answer is renewable energy, although it’s not clear how quickly their use could be increased given supply issues (not to mention the human rights abuses associated for instance with solar components sourced from Xinjiang, China).

Amid painfully high energy prices, Europe is bracing for a winter that will be even costlier. Eventually, the costs of energy infrastructure will be passed on to taxpayers in some form, for multiple generations.

For many nuclear observers looking just at the balance sheets, nuclear power should be relegated to the past.

October 21, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Strikes at French nuclear plants – what’s at stake?

 Forrest Crellin, 19 Oct 22, PARIS, (Reuters) – Strikes at France’s nuclear power plants have affected about a third of its reactors, in many cases delaying maintenance work and complicating operator EDF’s (EDF.PA) efforts to boost production ahead of winter.

Currently 20 out of 56 reactors have been impacted, a union official said on Wednesday. Of these, maintenance plans of 17 have been disrupted, with some seeing their restart schedule delayed by a few days and some by up to three weeks.

THE EFFECT ON SUPPLY

France’s nuclear output was already expected to hit a 30-year low in 2022 due to a record number of reactor outages for corrosion issues and planned maintenance, at a time when Europe is facing an energy crisis because of the war in Ukraine.

Rolling strikes over wages by the FNME-CGT union at some plants have added to the problem.

Maintenance delays at nine reactors have caused the loss of 4.4 terawatt hours (TWh) of nuclear power generation – nearly a quarter of the power produced in September – compared to the maintenance schedule before the strikes began, data from consultancy Energy Aspects showed.

France is a net importer of electricity and the strikes will further boost power imports, particularly from Britain, the consultancy said.

Power grid operator RTE warned on Tuesday that prolonged strikes further delaying the restart of reactors could have “heavy consequences” for electricity supply over the winter.

Britain’s National Grid has also cited maintenance issues at French nuclear reactors as a factor that could affect UK energy supplies this winter……………..

the strikes raise a question mark over power availability for November………………….

WHAT’S THE COST?

FNME-CGT secretary general Sébastien Menesplier said a one day outage at an EDF reactor usually cost about 1 million euros ($976,600) but that at current electricity prices that could be “5 to 10 times more”.

With the baseload November power price around 587 euros ($573) per megawatt-hour (MWh), the cost of a reactor not running is probably not far from 10 million euros per day, said Emeric de Vigan, vice president of power at data and analytics firm Kpler.

However, French forward baseload contracts have fallen from highs over 1,000 euros in late August, as maintenance delays at EDF have been mostly be priced in.

“With that being said, events like this come at the worst possible time, when French nuclear is needed the most, and even more so for the coming months,” Rystad analyst Fabian Ronningen said.

WHAT’S THE LEGAL POSITION?

Workers are legally obligated to ensure the continuity of the public electricity service, requiring them to raise production or resume operations to return reactors to the grid to avoid power cuts………………………………. more https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/strikes-french-nuclear-plants-whats-stake-2022-10-19/

October 19, 2022 Posted by | employment, France | Leave a comment

Off the hook: UK government absolves nuclear operators from accident liability

It’s as we suspected”, says the Chair of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities, expressing his disappointment that once more the UK Government is providing a subsidy to the nuclear industry by absolving operators of the need to pay compensation in the event of an accident.

In a letter to Energy Minister Lord Callanan, Councillor David Blackburn asked how nuclear operators, at present French-owned EDF Energy, would be expected to comply with the requirements of the revised provisions of the Paris Convention that they pay out up to 700 million Euro in damages after an accident, whether through taking out insurance with private-sector underwriters to pay the compensation in the event of an accident or by setting aside funds in an escrow account. This liability will increase by a further 100 million Euro in each of the next five years.

In the letter, Cllr Blackburn also expressed the NFLA’s fears that the UK Government would provide a taxpayer funded bailout for the industry by taking on the liability itself, and Lord Callanan’s reply, citing an immature insurance market, makes it clear that this will indeed be the case: ‘the Government has agreed initially to provide an indemnity, for an economic charge, to cover increased personal injury liabilities for the 10-to-30-year period’.

Commenting Councillor Blackburn said: “This is yet another example of a situation in which nuclear enjoys the benefit of a public subsidy.

“Exactly like the situation with the Nuclear Liabilities Fund, where taxpayers pick up the tab for the cost of decommissioning, which in the last two financial years has meant a further £10.7 billion of public money going to the Fund, the poor suffering British taxpayer will have to shell out up to 1.2 billion Euros, that should be paid by the industry, in the event of a nuclear accident.

“By accepting liability, the government is de-risking nuclear operations. And EDF Energy and its ultimate owner, France, are laughing – they can dodge the liability and walk away scot-free if calamity strikes”.

The NFLA has now sent a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking further details of the so-called ‘economic charge’ paid by nuclear operator EDF Energy to allow them to evade their legal responsibilities. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/off-the-hook-uk-government-absolves-nuclear-operators-from-accident-liability/

October 19, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

‘A nuclear waste dump and seaside resort don’t go well together’.

 Campaigners say the proposal will harm Mabletherpe’s tourism sector. A
proposed nuclear waste dump is hanging over communities like ‘the Sword
of Damocles’, campaigners have claimed.

A company is exploring whether the former Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal could be used to store the waste
underground. They claim it would create 4,000 jobs, and safely store the
radioactive material. However, the Guardians of the East Coast say that the
long decision-making process will harm tourism in Mablethorpe.

Ken Smith, chair of the group, said: “A nuclear waste dump and a bucket-and-spade
resort don’t go well together either. For every job created there, one
could be lost in the tourism industry. “And investment won’t come while
the possibility of the nuclear waste is hanging over Theddlethorpe like the
Sword of Damocles. “It would be better that we found out either way
sooner rather than later. The town will get more run down while a decision
is dragging on.” He likened the long-running fight, which could take 10
to 15 years, to a “war of attrition”.

 The Lincolnite 19th Oct 2022

October 19, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Ukraine Rises from Near Zero to Major Recipient of US Arms

regardless of the outcome of the conflict itself, the military contractors win. The Defense Department has already started ordering replacements for some of the weapons shipped to Ukraine. US weapons manufacturers are profiting from what appears to be an open-ended commitment to supply Ukrainian forces.

without an indication of when real peace negotiations will take place, the seemingly unending flow of weapons from the United States is likely to continue and US defense contractors will continue to increase their profits. At the same time, though, the risks of these transfers also increase as the quantity of weapons transferred grows,”

by Thalif Deen, UNITED NATIONS, Oct 14 2022 (IPS) – The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has resulted in a never-ending flow of arms to the battle-scarred country— elevating the besieged nation to the ranks of one of the major recipients of US weapons and American security assistance.

As of last week, the US has provided a hefty $17.5 billion in arms and military assistance to Ukraine.

The five biggest arms buyers from the US during 2017-2021 were Saudi Arabia, which accounted for 23.4 percent of all US arms exports –followed by Australia 9.4 percent, South Korea 6.8 percent, Japan 6.7 percent and Qatar 5.4 percent.

The figure for Ukraine during the same period was 0.1 percent, according to the latest statistics released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

But this measly figure is expected to skyrocket in 2022, judging by the uninterrupted flow of American weapons.

In a statement to reporters October 4, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said pursuant to a delegation of authority from the President, “I am authorizing our 22nd drawdown of U.S. arms and equipment for Ukraine since August 2021.”

This $625 million drawdown, he said, includes additional arms, munitions, and equipment from U.S. Department of Defense inventories.

This drawdown will bring the total U.S. military assistance for Ukraine to more than $17.5 billion since the beginning of the Biden Administration in January 2021.

Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher, Arms Transfers Programme at SIPRI, told IPS arms supplies to Ukraine were very small compared to those of the top-15 recipients of US arms.

This will change in 2022 as Ukraine has received major weapon systems from the US, such as 20 HIMARS long range rocket launchers, close to 1000 older model used light armoured vehicles, radars and 142 M-777 towed guns, he said.

“These are most valuable systems per item which Ukraine has received from the US, but the numbers involved and the military or financial value of these weapons are modest compared to what certain other countries have received in major systems in recent years.”

He pointed out that Ukraine has not received other items that per piece or especially valuable such as modern tanks, combat aircraft, major ships and long-range air defense systems.

Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a Visiting Professor of the Practice in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, told IPS these weapons transfers entail numerous risks.

One significant risk is that the weapons will be captured by Russian forces and potentially used against Western forces. Another is that weapons that remain when the conflict ends will be transferred to other areas of conflict, she warned.

One of the nightmare scenarios, she pointed out, is US weapons being used against US forces. Transferring vast quantities of weapons in such a short period of time increases this risk by making it more difficult to ensure accountability and prevent diversion of the weapons.

Perhaps the largest risk, she said, “is that Russian President Vladimir Putin will not accept the argument that these weapons are only being supplied to help Ukraine defend itself, particularly if we’re supplying weapons that can attack targets inside Russia.”

That may lead to an escalation and expansion of the conflict, and would likely produce even more threats of nuclear weapons use than President Putin has already made she noted.

“Escalating threats in turn increase the risk of actual use of nuclear weapons, whether deliberate or through accident or miscalculation”, said Dr Goldring, who also represents the Acronym Institute at the United Nations, on conventional weapons and arms trade issues.

In the end, she argued, regardless of the outcome of the conflict itself, the military contractors win. The Defense Department has already started ordering replacements for some of the weapons shipped to Ukraine. US weapons manufacturers are profiting from what appears to be an open-ended commitment to supply Ukrainian forces.

…………………………. without an indication of when real peace negotiations will take place, the seemingly unending flow of weapons from the United States is likely to continue and US defense contractors will continue to increase their profits. At the same time, though, the risks of these transfers also increase as the quantity of weapons transferred grows,” she declared………………………………….. more https://www.ipsnews.net/2022/10/ukraine-rises-near-zero-major-recipient-us-arms/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ukraine-rises-near-zero-major-recipient-us-arms

October 16, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘The Hell With It’: SpaceX CEO Musk Reverses Position On Funding Satellite Internet For Ukraine

 https://www.rferl.org/a/musk-starlink-ukraine-funding-spacex/32084855.html 16 Oct 22

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk now says that his company will continue to pay for the Starlink satellite Internet service for Ukraine, a day after suggesting SpaceX could no longer afford it.

“The hell with it,” Musk said on Twitter. “Even though Starlink is still losing money & other companies are getting billions of taxpayer $, we’ll just keep funding ukraine govt for free.”

Musk activated Starlink, a network of more than 2,000 satellites orbiting the Earth and thousands of terminals on the ground, in late February after Internet services were disrupted because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Starlink has cost SpaceX $80 million thus far and the cost will exceed $100 million by end of year, Musk said on Twitter on October 7.

He told his more than 108 million Twitter followers on October 14 that SpaceX cannot fund the network “indefinitely” amid reports that he has asked the Pentagon to step in.

He issued the statement after CNN reported that SpaceX sent a letter to the Pentagon last month saying it could not continue to fund the Starlink service in Ukraine and that it may have to stop funding it unless the U.S. military gives the company tens of millions of dollars a month.

The Defense Department later confirmed that it received a request from Musk to take over funding for the satellite network. The official said the issue has been discussed in meetings and senior leaders are weighing the matter.

October 16, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Low operating costs make the case for investing in utility-scale renewable projects

 Renewables met 100% of global electricity demand growth during the first
half of 2022. So says the ‘Global Electricity Mid-Year Insights 2022’
from Ember, a global energy think tank. In fact, it says there was a 389
TWh increase in the demand for electricity in the first half of 2022
compared to the first half of 2021, whereas the rise in renewables supply
was actually a bit more – 416TWh.

That’s not surprising given that
renewables are getting so cheap- including in the UK, with wind and solar
the most prolificate new sources across world. However, that in turn may
create a bit of a problem for older renewables, set up under quite
lucrative subsidy schemes, based on now high gas prices, like the
Renewables Obligation in the UK. As I have noted in earlier posts, there is
pressure on them to switch to the more competitive CfD system. Certainly
the RO system is based on adding a subsidy to wholesale gas prices, so
something has to change, since gas prices are now so high. But there are
issues- will every supplier be happy to accept less earnings? They may drag
their feet.

The record-breaking run in power prices, particularly in
Europe, is creating a favorable investment case for solar and wind
projects, making it increasingly compelling to develop renewable assets
purely based on project economics. According to Norwegian consultancy
Rystad Energy, current spot prices in Germany, France, Italy, and the
United Kingdom would all result in payback of 12 months or less.
Considering the average monthly spot prices for August in these countries
were all well over €400/MWh and the relatively low operating costs of
renewables, investing in utility-scale projects appear to be a no-brainer.

 Renew Extra 15th Oct 2022

https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2022/10/renewable-booming-but-windfall-tax.html

October 16, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, renewable, UK | Leave a comment

U.S. tax-payers’ aid to Ukraine $67.5 billion – Taiwan will be the next beneficiary

Nothing But Welfare Queens: American Aid to Zelensky and Tsai Ing-wen

Libertarian Institute, by Patrick Macfarlane | Oct 13, 2022,

As it pertains to the American public, Ukraine’s response to the Russian invasion can be summed up with two words: “Zelensky demands.”

To date, Washington elites and their politicians have been happy to provide—at public expense—lining their own pockets in the process.

As of this writing, U.S. aid for Ukraine has reached approximately $67.5 billion, a figure greater than Russia’s entire 2021 military budget. According to the State Department, this support includes $15.2 billion in direct military assistance. The support comes although 60-70% of lethal aid never reaches the front lines, according to a now-redacted CBS interview with on-the-ground activists.

Not only is the American taxpayer supporting much of the Ukrainian military, it is also supporting the Ukrainian government. The same working class Americans who were deemed “nonessential” in 2020—who saw their businesses shuttered and burned down—now have to pay entitlement programs both at home and in Ukraine. As of September 30, 2022, the U.S. has provided $13 billion in “direct budget support,” which is ostensibly used;

…to pay government salaries, meet pension obligations, maintain hospitals and schools, and protect critical infrastructure[,] support continuity operations at the national, regional, and local levels, support for [sic] the health sector, agricultural production, civil society, [and enable] programs to hold Russia and its forces accountable for their actions in Ukraine.

Although American taxpayers have already matched Russia’s 2021 military budget, Ukrainian president Vlodomyr Zelensky only demands more. During a Tuesday phone call, President Biden reviewed Washington’s latest $625 million dole to Zelensky. It includes, inter alia, 4 additional High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), 16 155mm Howitzers, 75,000 155 mm artillery rounds, 500 precision-guided 155mm artillery rounds, 16 105mm Howitzers, 30,000 120 mm mortar rounds, and 200 MaxxPro Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles.

This latest boon notwithstanding, in the same phone call, Zelensky urged Biden to provide Ukraine with air defense systems that would be used to shoot down Russian planes.

………………… Republicans like Taylor-Greene, Gaetz, and Hawley understand the cost of empire: endless warfare, a decaying homefront, and a beclowned international reputation. They understand that a war between the U.S. and Russia will be unlike anything Americans have ever experienced. Although they cloak their condemnation of war with Russia in criticism of “weak Joe Biden,” they understand it is the West that provoked this conflict and seeks to prolong it “to the last Ukrainian.” They know that the conflict—even if it remains by-proxy—is a cost war-weary working class Americans do not want and cannot afford.

They must, then, realize that the same Washington elites waxing American fat off the Ukraine conflict are cultivating Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen as a Zelensky in-waiting.

Although U.S. military aid to Taiwan traditionally comes by way of arms sales, that may soon change. Senators Bob Menendez and Lindsey Graham have introduced the Taiwan Policy Act—a piece of legislation that would radically overhaul Sino-American relations.

In short, “the Taiwan Policy Act would give Taiwan $6.5 billion in military aid, give the island the benefits of being a ‘major non-NATO ally,’ expedite arms sales to Taipei, and require sanction in the event of Chinese aggression.” The bill would also authorize up to $2 billion in loans to Taiwan.

On September 14, the bill passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rather than passing it as a standalone piece of legislation, the bill’s supporters currently seek to incorporate “much” of the bill into the $817 billion 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. As of Wednesday, it is not clear exactly which provisions would be incorporated.

As above noted, the Taiwan Policy Act was introduced in the Senate on June 16, 2022 by Senators Bob Menendez and Lindsey Graham. Both Menendez and Graham are ardent supporters of Ukraine and Zelensky.

Graham met with Zelensky in July to hand deliver a plaque of his proposed Senate resolution to designate Russia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. Since the Russian invasion, Graham has made regular appearances on Fox News whipping up lethal aid for Ukraine while calling for regime change in Moscow.

Menendez, as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has spearheaded Washington’s Ukraine support. In January, he began and continues to lead the comprehensive U.S. sanctions campaign against Russia. In March, Menendez lambasted Congressional Republicans, mainly Senator Rick Scott (R-FL), for undermining Ukraine aid. In May, Menendez, among others, introduced a Senate resolution approving the bids of Finland and Sweden to join NATO (something Josh Hawley correctly opposed).

On June 23 Menendez specifically invoked the 75th anniversary of the Marshall Plan to stoke support for Ukraine, but the Marshall Plan came after WWII, not during it, when similar support further involves the U.S. in the conflict.

Republicans opposing U.S. support for Ukraine should take note that both Menendez and Graham have repeatedly met with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen to pledge American support for Taiwan. In their latest visit on April 15, 2022, president Ing-wen called Lindsey Graham a “pillar of strength for Taiwan in the U.S. Congress” and dubbed Menendez one of Taiwan’s “staunchest friends.”

In his meeting remarks, Graham likened U.S. support for Ukraine to its support for Taiwan, saying:……………………………………………….

Menendez echoed Graham’s sentiment in his own remarks, shedding light on Washington’s Ukrainian plans for Taiwan:…………………..

Menendez followed up these remarks with an op-ed in The New York Times, stating:…………………………

These remarks should terrify working class Americans. Essentially, Menendez is proposing a redoubling of military support for Taiwan—the same “preventive policy” which played a large role in provoking Putin to invade Ukraine. We simply cannot afford it.

The above-named Congressional Republicans were right to oppose aid to Ukraine. For those same reasons, they should oppose adding Tsai Ing-wen to the same dole as the entitled and ungrateful Zelensky. Like Rand Paul, they should oppose the Taiwan Policy Act in all its forms.  https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/nothing-but-welfare-queens-american-aid-to-zelensky-and-tsai-ing-wen/

October 14, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, USA | 6 Comments

The real war is, “people vs. the banks”

Things are not going well for the “rules-based” empire of lies

Alex Krainer’s TrendCompass Alex Krainer 12 Oct 22

Recessions, debt, energy crisis, inflation and wars… somehow it is all related, and it is related at a global level, impacting nearly all economies and markets. It all seems to be going rather badly for the “rules based global order,” or as some prefer to call it, “the empire of lies.”

Shock, after shock, after shock…

Last week, on Oct. 6, Kristalina Georgieva, IMF’s Managing Director gave a speech at the Georgetown University in Washington where she explained that the global economy, which was expected to recover strongly after the Covid 19 pandemic, experienced a “shock, after shock, after shock” instead, that it is now experiencing a “fundamental shift,” and that this shift could create a “dangerous new normal.” Georgieva thinks this can only be mitigated by “countries working together.”

We’re winning in Ukraine! Or maybe not.

Part of the problem is the “senseless war” in Ukraine. For weeks now, as the groupthink went, the war has turned in the west’s favor and Ukraine has been winning. Nobody even bothers pretending any more that this war is between Russia and Ukraine: it is now overtly discussed as the war between Russia and the collective west. NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made this plain in yesterday’s press conference: “If Putin wins, that is not only a big defeat for the Ukrainians, but it will be the defeat, and dangerous, for all of us.” But not to worry, said Stoltenberg, “Ukraine has the momentum,” and “President Putin is failing in Ukraine.”

Last week, US 4-star General Jack Keane went on Fox Business to boast about Bidden administration’s awesome “investment” in Ukraine: “We have a $6 trillion budget… we’ve invested, and I mean, invested, $66 billion in Ukraine this year and that is like, 1.1% [of the budget] … So for $66 billion what we’re getting is Ukraine doing the fighting, they are literally destroying the Russian Army on the battlefield.” 

So apparently we’re winning and we can all relax – everything is awesome. Or maybe it isn’t. Last week, former US National Security Advisor, John Bolton published a revealing article that gives away a different mindset near the top of western command-and-control hierarchy. Bolton says that “the West still lacks a shared definition of ‘victory’ in Ukraine,” and that “everyone worries about the durability of Europe’s resolve…” But it was John Bolton’s Tweet promoting the article that was the most revealing: 

John Bolton @AmbJohnBolton My new article’s headline is clear– “Putin must go: Now is the time for regime change in Russia.” There is no long-term prospect for achieving America’s critical, long-standing goal of peace and security in Europe without regime change in Russia. 

What Bolton seems to be saying is that Putin has defeated the rules-based global order and that they can only reverse this defeat if they could remove Putin from power and replace him with some Juan Guaido who would hand them back their toys and their victory. Bolton then went on CBS to advocate for the assassination of Vladimir Putin………..


It’s the banks, not Vladimir Putin

So then, what would be the “fundamental shift,” and the “dangerous new normal” that IMF’s Georgieva is worried about? I believe that the worry is that the rules-based global order is falling into a profound economic, social and political crisis that could be long and very severe. And even while we are all encouraged to come together and hate on Russia and Vladimir Putin, that’s not where this crisis emanated from. Rather, it emanated from the fraudulent monetary system that’s largely shaped our rules-based global order and which has had an impressive track record of incentivizing forever wars and generating chronic crises. 

Chronic crises, forever wars……………………………………

Rather than waging never-ending wars, blowing up bridges and pipelines or assassinating Vladimir Putin, western powers would do well to reform their monetary systems and embrace honest money. Even a miraculous military victory over Russia could only delay the day of reckoning, and the system would need to find a new enemy to fight more wars. That is a certainty. As Lord Acton said over a century ago, “The issue that has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the Banks.” The banks – not Russia nor Vladimir Putin!

P.S. I do not mean local banks and savings institutions but the international banking cartel and their Global Systemically Important Banks.  https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/the-real-war-is-people-vs-the-banks

October 14, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs | Leave a comment

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.

October 14, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | 2 Comments

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

October 14, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE | Leave a comment

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 WassermanTruthout 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/

October 12, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

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.

October 12, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

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

October 12, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment