Nationalisation of EDF seen as ‘inevitable’ to carry out France’s nuclear plans

EDF’s market capitalisation has collapsed in the past few years, going from €150 billion in 2007 to less than €40 billion today.
A debt estimated at more than €43 billion, fuelled by delays in constructing its new fourth-generation reactors, also puts the company in a difficult spot.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/nationalisation-of-edf-seen-as-inevitable-to-carry-out-frances-nuclear-plans/ By Paul Messad | EURACTIV.fr | translated by Daniel Eck 18 July 22
The government’s decision to nationalise Electricité de France, announced on 6 July, provoked mixed reactions in the French Parliament.
Yet, according to Jean-Michel Gauthier, director of the Energy & Finance Chair at HEC Paris, the decision was “inevitable” because of the regulatory constraints faced by the company.
Under French law, EDF must sell part of its nuclear electricity to the competition at a set price (€42/MWh) and buy it back on the market like any other supplier.
But because of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, the current market price stands above €200/MWh, according to France’s electricity transmission system operator RTE.
This means EDF is selling at a loss to feed the competition, something unions and many observers have decried as a “plundering” of the French company.
On top of that, the state has also asked EDF to dish out €8 billion for the so-called “tariff shield” to limit gas prices in times of crisis.
EDF’s market capitalisation has collapsed in the past few years, going from €150 billion in 2007 to less than €40 billion today.
A debt estimated at more than €43 billion, fuelled by delays in constructing its new fourth-generation reactors, also puts the company in a difficult spot.
But according to Professor Gauthier, the company’s debt “is not at all the subject”. It is even “irrelevant, with regard to the major subjects of energy and industrial policy in France,” he told EURACTIV.
According to Gauthier, the main challenges lie in the company’s vast nuclear programme. First, EDF will have to spend more than €50 billion by 2030 to extend the life of existing nuclear power plants.
As announced by President Emmanuel Macron in February, the French energy giant must also adopt measures to build six new fourth-generation EPR-type reactors. According to the latest estimates, that effort will cost €50-60 billion.
Going under full state ownership will offer EDF a debt guarantee, as well as lower rates to raise additional debt, Gauthier says.
More worrying, according to him, is the number of key points the state has dropped from its nuclear industrial policy in recent years.
“These are the major issues: what is to be done with the EPR 2, the third generation reactors, the ASTRID project and the small modular reactors (SMR),” he said.
The professor also questioned the state’s means to meet its pledged energy ambitions.
Renewables in all this?
However, these multi-billion euro projects only deal with nuclear without addressing EDF’s capacity to deploy renewable energies – another major priority of the government.
“Today, given the bubble around green finance, there is no reason for the state to own solar or wind power capacity,” explained Gauthier.
“We can therefore imagine [that we] go back to square one […], i.e. that the State puts the portfolio of EDF Renewables, a subsidiary wholly owned by EDF, on the market,” he added. This project could revive divisions between the state and the unions if green-lighted.
For the time being, it is necessary “to keep a single EDF”, the company’s CEO Jean-Bernard Lévy told broadcaster BFM TV on Monday (11 July).
EDF without renewables would be a dark “utopia”, he also said.
When it comes to energy-related decisions, the state must be the “only pilot” on board and the “only decision-maker”, Gauthier concluded.
Greencoat Capital UK to greenwash nuclear power?

Greencoat Capital is considering creating a nuclear investment fund to take
a stake in EDF’s proposed Sizewell C plant in Suffolk. The renewables
investment manager is eyeing a move into nuclear that could lead to the
fund investing in Hinkley Point C, under construction in Somerset, and the
existing Sizewell B plant. Bankers working for EDF and the UK government
are seeking investors to join them in funding the construction of Sizewell
C, which could power 6 million homes and is expected to cost at least £20
billion. Richard Nourse, Greencoat Capital’s founder, said: “My feeling
is that there’s a huge amount of money required. When you need a huge
amount of money, you normally have to price it to go, and therefore it will
be potentially an interesting investment. Given nuclear will be a
fearsomely complex and technically demanding area for UK pension funds to
evaluate risk, we see an opportunity for Greencoat to be a trusted adviser
and manager of funds.”
Times 16th July 2022
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/investment-firm-readies-nuclear-fund-j7xtbdqxl
BOEING’s executives rake $billions from tax-payers to spread weapons around the world

Taxpayers within the U.S. gave Boeing $21.33 billion through government contracts in 2020 alone.
While companies like Boeing continue to rake in billions from producing and selling weapons, there is a pathway for more communities to organize, to resist public dollars lining the pockets of war profiteers instead of going toward the public good.
”……………………………………………………………………Bush-Era Legislation Paves the Way for Corporate Exploitation,
Making commercial airplanes, what Boeing is most commonly known for, accounts for less than 30 percent of the company’s annual revenue. Boeing is primarily in the business of profiting from war and militarism, not airplanes. As the world’s third-largest profiter of weapons sales, the company rakes in billions in profit from arming the war on Yemen, Israel’s occupation of Palestine, and India’s ethnic cleansing of Kashmir.
Fifty-five percent of Boeing’s profits come from weapons sales, amounting to more than $32 billion in 2020, to both the U.S. government and 21 countries around the world. Taxpayers within the U.S. gave Boeing $21.33 billion through government contracts in 2020 alone. Chicago’s tax breaks for Boeing happened in the context of the company already reaping huge profit from public resources via U.S. government spending on things like military weapons, border surveillance and the creation of missile systems.
Boeing is in the business of selling weapons to governments that are used to wage war and enact state violence. In this case, a challenge to corporate tax incentives became a challenge to the whole business model of a war profiteer and a challenge to the idea that the public funds can or should subsidize militarism and profit.
Twenty years ago, Boeing’s move to Chicago was on the early edge of what has become a pattern of corporations relocating to places where they stand to benefit from tax incentives and mega-deals. Local governments compete to offer the best deals for the companies, which are often the worst deals for the public in terms of dollar-for-dollar outcomes.
This pattern was then codified and accelerated by President George W. Bush signing the “Job Creation & Worker Assistance Act” into law just months later in March 2002. Making way for corporations to pocket $300 billion over 10 years, this piece of legislation was a corporate tax break branded as a way to create jobs for everyday people. This narrative about corporations paying fewer taxes is rooted in the free market idea that relieving the “burden” of things like regulation and taxation allows corporations and the market to create economic growth, jobs and prosperity. However, what we see to actually be true is that corporations are driven by profit, something that is maximized via exploitation and extraction from our natural environment or, in this case, from public funds.
Then known as a Seattle-based company that makes airplanes, Boeing’s move in late 2001 exemplified a desire to separate their executives from their weapons manufacturing hubs and establish proximity to more global business leaders in a “world-class” city. In exchange for housing its headquarters in a downtown skyscraper and promising to maintain only 500 jobs to the city, Boeing would receive annual tax reimbursement checks from the City of Chicago, in addition to further tax breaks from the state. Even with an impressively low bar, Boeing repeatedly fell short and is now leaving the city after having taken in tens of millions of public dollars without consequence for its failure to deliver for Chicagoans or for the harm the company’s weapons have caused around the world.
Corporate Tax Incentives Benefit Executives, Not Residents or Workers
Corporations lured to cities and states by tax incentives consistently under-deliver and often are not held to whether they hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to providing jobs and economic growth in exchange for tax cuts. In 2017, then-Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker brokered what was one of the largest corporate tax incentive deals ever approved. Electronics company Foxconn would receive more than $4 billion in state and local tax incentives on the premise of building a massive new factory that was to create 13,000 jobs.
Two years after the original deal was reached, plans for building a massive factory had been scaled back, and only 178 jobs were created. By 2021, the proposed factory and corresponding deal that former President Donald Trump lauded as being the “eighth wonder of the world” had shrunk dramatically in scope, and the contract was renegotiated after Governor Walker left office. Foxconn never delivered on visions of thousands of jobs created by a huge factory campus despite benefiting from more than a billion public dollars in forgone investment.
Despite the public narrative pushed by right-wingers, centrist Democrats and corporate elites — a narrative claiming that relieving taxes on corporations creates economic growth — those who stand to benefit most from these types of deals are high-level corporate executives, not workers or local residents. A recent study analyzing the effects of two specific corporate tax breaks showed that for every dollar a company benefits from certain tax breaks, the pay of the company’s top five executives increased by 17 percent to 25 percent.
Evidence does not support the idea that tax breaks actually result in higher wages or better jobs for workers. And a report published by the Action Center on Race and the Economy showed that in the case of Boeing specifically, “The creation of additional jobs and income as spending from the Boeing headquarters rippled through the economy was not significant.” This is despite the city and state giving $63 million in tax incentives to bring 500 jobs, which equate to about $126,000 per job per year financed by the city, most of which already existed before the move.
Imagine those funds invested in the public sector, in high-paying union jobs, dedicated to the programs and services that working communities are constantly seeking such as health care, education and needed social programs — we could create real jobs programs instead of lining the pockets of executives such as Boeing CEO David Calhoun, who recently bought a $2.7 million condominium in downtown Chicago………………………………….
Let’s Divert Resources From Militarized Violence to Community Investment
Not only does Boeing take resources away from other needed public goods and services by pulling in tax breaks and government contracts, it also profits from the production and sale of deadly weapons used to wage militarized violence around the world. Boeing earned over $62.29 billion in revenue in 2021.
Its fighter jets and helicopters were used in an attack that killed 256 Palestinians in May of last year. In the Saudi-led war on Yemen, the single largest weapon killing civilians has been guided missiles, of which Boeing had sold Saudi Arabia more than 6,000 guided bombs by 2019. In the 2016 bombing of a market in the Yemeni village of Mastaba, which killed 97 people (including 25 children), destroyed infrastructure and left massive destruction, Boeing weapons guidance kits were used to ensure the missile hit its target.
Boeing doesn’t limit its use of militarized technologies to violence abroad, however. Boeing is heavily involved in the lucrative business of militarizing the U.S.-Mexico border……………………………………..
While companies like Boeing continue to rake in billions from producing and selling weapons, there is a pathway for more communities to organize, to resist public dollars lining the pockets of war profiteers instead of going toward the public good. While Boeing leaving Chicago and taking its headquarters to Virginia may not be a standalone win, blocking the company from its last paycheck from the city and the precedent it sets certainly is. As local groups calling out Boeing emerge in more and more cities across the country, from the Washington, D.C., area to Seattle to St. Louis the company should expect and deserves heat wherever it goes.
Everyday people, like the young Black and Brown organizers resisting Boeing in Chicago, have the power to make it no longer politically acceptable to funnel public dollars toward the profits of a weapons-maker in any city. Wielding that power to make an impact requires us to be organized. It requires us to grow social movements that connect the dots between issues like militarized violence and corporate greed in order to paint a fuller picture of both what is wrong in the world and what is possible………………… https://truthout.org/articles/lets-replicate-chicagos-antiwar-organizing-victory-against-boeing/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a0819f3e-09e9-4774-9b4a-fd30ff368bb3
France’s nationalisation of nuclear energy corporation EDF raises more questions than it answers

Just as Europe attempts to move away from its dependence on Russian gas and grapples with soaring power prices, problems at some of EDF’s existing 56 reactors in France have caused shutdowns and sent its energy output to multi-decade lows.
At the site of France’s first new nuclear reactor in more than 20 years, robots are whirring away fixing faulty welding as developer EDF races to open the plant after a decade of delays that have damaged its reputation.
Ahead of it lies a challenge of a different order of magnitude: a construction program to build six more, just as the French government, which owns 84 per cent of the business already, plans to take full control.
The full nationalization of EDF, which was announced earlier this month, comes as a series of crises pile pressure on the group’s finances.
In theory this will provide it with some relief away from the glare of public markets. So far, however, the state buyout has raised more questions than it has answered, including how the government thinks it might do a better job at fixing long-running industrial problems that have plagued projects at EDF, some of them as basic as a lack of experienced welders. “It’s not because the government will now have 100 percent that it’s going to suddenly take three years less to build a reactor,” one person close to the company said. “Right now, we’re in symbolic territory with this nationalization. It does not resolve any of the main problems we know the group is facing – will it allow EDF to bolster the skills it needs?” said Cécile Maisonneuve, a senior adviser at the center for energy and climate at French think thank IFRI. “None of the industrial or regulatory issues were linked to its capital structure.”
Just as Europe attempts to move away from its dependence on Russian gas and grapples with soaring power prices, problems at some of EDF’s existing 56 reactors in France have caused shutdowns and sent its energy output to multi-decade lows.
FT 17th July 2022
https://www.ft.com/content/7d7225ad-dd3b-4b95-95a6-c270a0089277
Increasingly economical renewables mean now’s no time for South Korea to cling to nuclear power
In these changing times, it is unfortunate that Korea is choosing to cling to the nuclear industry, the marketability of which is becoming increasingly unclear.
https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/english_editorials/1051124.html Jul.15,2022
The new administration’s nuclear power advocacy runs counter to global trends toward renewables.
A new report released by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has revealed that global solar and wind power generation costs are down 13%-15% compared to one year ago.
According to IRENA’s “Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2021” report released on Wednesday, the global weighted average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of new onshore wind projects added in 2021 fell by 15% year on year while that of new utility-scale solar PV and offshore wind both declined by 13%.
The report explains that the LCOE of a given technology is the ratio of lifetime costs to lifetime electricity generation; it is used as a measure to compare the economic feasibility of the various methods of generating electricity.
In 2021, renewables’ share of total power generation capacity growth reached 81%. It seems that these figures continue to improve as the economy gets stronger.
In Korea, however, the perception that nuclear power equals cheap energy is still strong. This is despite the fact that globally, renewable energy dominates nuclear power in terms of economic feasibility.
According to a report released by Lazard, a global asset management company, in October of last year, the average cost of electricity per megawatt-hour (MWh) of solar power fell by 90%, from $359 in 2009 to $36 last year. Wind power also fell 72% from $135 to $38.
Comparatively, nuclear power saw a 36% increase in cost from $123 to $167 during the same period. In fact, nuclear power has already become 4.5 times more expensive than renewable energy.
This is because, while technology is developing day by day as investment into renewable energy increases in step with the global trend of transitioning to cleaner energy sources, construction costs for nuclear power plants are increasing as safety regulations are strengthened after the Fukushima incident.
Advanced economies, particularly those in Europe, are scrambling to come up with energy policies centered on renewable energy. To this end, the EU announced in May that it would increase the share of renewable energy from the current 22% to 45% by 2030. This is an upward revision of the 40% target set a year ago.
The change is reportedly aimed at quickly getting rid of Europe’s dependency on Russian energy. In other words, Europe seems to be choosing to expand its use of renewable energy as a solution to its current energy crisis.
South Korea, however, is running counter to this trend by advocating to become a leader in the nuclear power field. By 2030, the proportion of Korea’s energy mix derived from nuclear power will increase to more than 30% while the proportion of renewable energy will reportedly be adjusted to a “reasonable” level.
The plan is to lower the existing renewable energy target, which stands at 30.2% by 2030, because it is perceived as being too high.
In the near future, whether or not companies use renewable energy is likely to act as a new trade barrier. In these changing times, it is unfortunate that Korea is choosing to cling to the nuclear industry, the marketability of which is becoming increasingly unclear.
Problem maintenance outage at Lepreau nuclear plant adds to N.B. Power money troubles

Costly spring shutdown of Point Lepreau nears day 100
Robert Jones · CBC News Jul 15, 2022
A troubled maintenance outage at the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station that began back in April has dragged on a month longer than planned and is adding to the financially challenged utility’s money troubles by the day.
N.B. Power expects Lepreau will be back in service sometime next week after what has turned into a 100-day outage, but with key work left unfinished. This work will require additional downtime next spring to fully complete…………………………
Point Lepreau is N.B. Power’s most important generating station, but its reliability has been a frustration since it emerged from a 4½-year, $2.4-billion refurbishment in late 2012.
In its annual reports, N.B. Power claims unscheduled outages at the nuclear plant cost the utility’s bottom line between $28,500 and $45,700 per hour depending on the time of year and market conditions, plus the cost of required repairs.
According to filings with the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board, Lepreau has experienced 8,000 more hours of downtime than projected since 2012, not including the current outage.
That has been a major factor in N.B. Power missing corporate profit targets for the last six years in a row and failing to execute on plans to reduce its debt load
In a third-quarter financial update released in February, N.B. Power reported its net debt hit $4.97 billion on December 31, 2021. That’s $40 million higher than last year and $810 million above levels it had projected for itself just six years ago………………………………………
more https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-power-lepreau-maintenance-1.6520978—
Uranium is losing the new energy market battle.
Uranium is losing the new energy market battle. Uranium is being bypassed
in the rush to embrace renewable wind and solar energy sources, leaving
nuclear power floundering well short of its once anticipated potential.
Mining Journal 14th July 2022
No end to nuclear costs for UK taxpayers

Varrie Blowers unpacks the impacts of the Nuclear Industry (Financing) Act
2022 in BANNG’s Regional Life column for June 2022.
Heard the fantasy about constructing an airport in the Thames estuary? And the one about
constructing a bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland?
Well, there is a new fantasy going the rounds: that eight new nuclear power stations will be
constructed in the UK in the next decade. And where is the Government proposing to obtain the huge sums required for construction? From your pocket, of course! Under the Nuclear Industry (Financing) Act, 2022, it is intended that in order to attract investors a levy will be added to consumers’ energy bills to pay the upfront costs. Energy Minister, Kwasi Kwarteng, thinks this will be ‘a small amount’ but at this time of
soaring energy bills seems unable to reveal the actual figure. And, on top of this, taxpayers will be paying £1.7bn to enable a large-scale nuclear
plant to achieve a final investment decision in this Parliament.
BANNG 13th June 2022
EDF the first company to take advantage of the European Union’s taxonomy classification of nuclear power as ”green”

EDF has become the first issuer to harness last week’s hard-fought
inclusion of nuclear power in the European Union’s taxonomy of
sustainable activities and will use a new green financing framework to
support nearly €8bn of annual nuclear spending.
IFR 12th July 2022
https://www.ifre.com/story/3439095/edf-galvanises-nuclear-green-bonds-d6zm8jhtf5
France and the big nuclear energy mistake

The French government wants to expand nuclear production in France and it also wants EDF to spend big money on the rehabilitation of numerous nuclear power generating stations. It has put pressure on EDF to embrace those policies and we suspect that it could force the issue as the majority shareholder.
France plans to renationalize EDF, its giant utility. That doesn’t sound like a big deal because the government already owns 84% of EDF’s outstanding shares.
But here is how we read the story.
The French government wants to expand nuclear production in France and it also wants EDF to spend big money on the rehabilitation of numerous nuclear power generating stations. It has put pressure on EDF to embrace those policies and we suspect that it could force the issue as the majority shareholder.
But a board of directors, with a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders and other providers of capital, would have a hard time approving a strategy that looked too risky or economically uncompetitive. EDF is, after all, not a division of the ministry of defense, but rather a somewhat privatized company with the government as its biggest and controlling shareholder. At least that is the appearance it would want to give to its shareholders. If France requires more nuclear power for geopolitical or strategic reasons,
despite its seeming cost disadvantage in the marketplace, we have no quarrel with that decision.
Our issue is with the current policy—to require some non-governmental shareholders to bear national security burdens and take financial risks that really belong uniquely to the government. The French have approached the matter with admirable clarity.
Oil Price 8th July 2022
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Europes-Big-And-Expensive-Energy-Mistake.html
Nationalisation of French energy giant EDF means it is unlikely to spearhead future nuclear power projects in UK, according to top industry insider
By FRANCESCA WASHTELL, FINANCIAL MAIL ON SUNDAY,
The nationalisation of French energy giant EDF means it is unlikely to spearhead future nuclear power projects in the UK, according to a top industry insider.
The Hinkley Point C developer will instead focus investment on reactors in France, the source said.
French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne announced last week that the state would buy the 16 per cent of shares in EDF it does not already own.
EDF, one of Britain’s big household energy suppliers, will continue work on Hinkley in Somerset, as well as Sizewell C in Suffolk, which is still being approved by the UK Government.
But the source said EDF would now shift its focus to France as it battles the energy crisis sweeping Europe, adding: ‘The odds of it putting money into another UK plant are incredibly small.
‘This has been a long time coming because being fully nationalised means it can put more money into French projects without having to worry about state aid.’ ……………………………… https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-10998301/Nationalised-EDF-wont-build-new-nuclear-sites-UK.html
France’s government working out how to take full control of indebted nuclear company EDF
Banks line up for French state buyout of EDF. The French government is
working with Goldman Sachs and Société Générale as it explores taking
full control of utility EDF, with a tender offer to minority shareholders
the preferred option, according to people familiar with the matter. The
government announced this week it would take back the 16 per cent of EDF it
does not already own, saying the move would bolster the energy group’s
finances as it prepares for more investment in expensive nuclear reactors
and allow France to gain even greater control on its electricity production
as Europe is rocked by an energy crisis. The government has yet to detail
how it will take full ownership of the indebted company. A public offer to
EDF shareholders, rather than trying to push a nationalization bill through
parliament, appears to be the quickest and most feasible plan, according to
three people familiar with the matter.
FT 8th July 2022
https://www.ft.com/content/96336649-eff5-44af-850b-8996d4bde19c
America’s $1.4 Trillion So-Called “National Security” Budget Makes Us Less Safe—Not More

America and the world would be far safer places if this outrageous spending was drastically cut and those funds redirected to “moral” investments in people, society, and planetary health—not war and weapons.
Common Dreams WILLIAM HARTUNG, July 7, 2022 by TomDispatch
This March, when the Biden administration presented a staggering $813 billion proposal for “national defense,” it was hard to imagine a budget that could go significantly higher or be more generous to the denizens of the military-industrial complex. After all, that request represented far more than peak spending in the Korean or Vietnam War years, and well over $100 billion more than at the height of the Cold War.
It was, in fact, an astonishing figure by any measure — more than two-and-a-half times what China spends; more, in fact, than (and hold your hats for this one!) the national security budgets of the next nine countries, including China and Russia, combined. And yet the weapons industry and hawks in Congress are now demanding that even more be spent.

In recent National Defense Authorization Act proposals, which always set a marker for what Congress is willing to fork over to the Pentagon, the Senate and House Armed Services Committees both voted to increase the 2023 budget yet again — by $45 billion in the case of the Senate and $37 billion for the House. The final figure won’t be determined until later this year, but Congress is likely to add tens of billions of dollars more than even the Biden administration wanted to what will most likely be a record for the Pentagon’s already bloated budget.
This lust for yet more weapons spending is especially misguided at a time when a never-ending pandemic, growing heat waves and other depredations of climate change, and racial and economic injustice are devastating the lives of millions of Americans. Make no mistake about it: the greatest risks to our safety and our future are non-military in nature, with the exception, of course, of the threat of nuclear war, which could increase if the current budget goes through as planned.
But as TomDispatch readers know, the Pentagon is just one element in an ever more costly American national security state. Adding other military, intelligence, and internal-security expenditures to the Pentagon’s budget brings the total upcoming “national security” budget to a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion. And note that, in June 2021, the last time my colleague Mandy Smithberger and I added up such costs to the taxpayer, that figure was almost $1.3 trillion, so the trend is obvious.
To understand how these vast sums are spent year after year, let’s take a quick tour of America’s national security budget, top to bottom.
The Pentagon’s proposed “base” budget, which includes all of its routine expenses from personnel to weapons to the costs of operating and maintaining a 1.3 million member military force, came in at $773 billion for 2023, more than $30 billion above that of 2022. Such an increase alone is three times the discretionary budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and more than three times the total allocation for the Environmental Protection Agency.
In all, the Pentagon consumes nearly half of the discretionary budget of the whole federal government, a figure that’s come down slightly in recent years thanks to the Biden administration’s increased investment in civilian activities. That still means, however, that almost anything the government wants to do other than preparing for or waging war involves a scramble for funding, while the Department of Defense gets virtually unlimited financial support.

And keep in mind that the proposed Biden increase in Pentagon spending comes despite the ending of 20 years of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, a move that should have meant significant reductions in the department’s budget. Perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn, however, that, in the wake of the Afghan disaster, the military establishment and hawks in Congress quickly shifted gears to touting — and exaggerating — challenges posed by China, Russia, and inflation as reasons for absorbing the potential savings from the Afghan War and pressing the Pentagon budget ever higher.
It’s worth looking at what America stands to receive for its $773 billion — or about $2,000 per taxpayer, according to an analysis by the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. More than half of that amount goes to giant weapons contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, along with thousands of smaller arms-making firms.
The most concerning part of the new budget proposal, however, may be the administration’s support for a three-decades long, $1.7-trillion plan to build a new generation of nuclear-armed missiles (as well, of course, as new warheads to go with them), bombers, and submarines. As the organization Global Zero has pointed out, the United States could dissuade any country from launching an atomic attack against it with far fewer weapons than are contained in its current nuclear arsenal. There’s simply no need for a costly — and risky — nuclear weapons “modernization” plan. Sadly, it’s guaranteed to help fuel a continuing global nuclear arms race, while entrenching nuclear weapons as a mainstay of national security policy for decades to come. (Wouldn’t those decades be so much better spent working to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether?)
The riskiest weapon in that nuclear plan is a new land-based, intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). As former Secretary of Defense William Perry once explained, ICBMs are among “the most dangerous weapons in the world” because a president warned of a nuclear attack would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch them, increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war based on a false alarm. Not only is a new ICBM unnecessary, but the existing ones should be retired as well, as a way of reducing the potential for a world-ending nuclear conflagration……………………..

The Nuclear Budget
The average taxpayer no doubt assumes that a government agency called the Department of Energy (DOE) would be primarily concerned with developing new sources of energy, including ones that would reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels to help rein in the ravages of climate change. Unfortunately, that assumption couldn’t be less true.
Instead of spending the bulk of its time and money on energy research and development, more than 40% of the Department of Energy’s budget for 2023 is slated to support the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which manages the country’s nuclear weapons program, principally by maintaining and developing nuclear warheads. Work on other military activities like reactors for nuclear submarines pushes the defense share of the DOE budget even higher. The NNSA spreads its work across the country, with major locations in California, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Its proposed 2023 budget for nuclear-weapons activities is $16.5 billion, part of a budget for defense-related projects of $29.8 billion……………………………
Our Misguided Security Budget
Spending $1.4 trillion to address a narrowly defined concept of national security should be considered budgetary malpractice on a scale so grand as to be almost unimaginable — especially at a time when the greatest risks to the safety of Americans and the rest of the world are not military in nature. After all, the Covid pandemic has already taken the lives of more than one million Americans, while the fires, floods, and heat waves caused by climate change have impacted tens of millions more.
Yet the administration’s proposed allocation of $45 billion to address climate change in the 2023 budget would be less than 6% of the Pentagon’s proposed budget of $773 billion……………………………….. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/07/07/americas-14-trillion-so-called-national-security-budget-makes-us-less-safe-not-more
The Corporatization of Space.

The Corporatization of Just About Everything,
Consortium News, Tom Valovic, July 6, 2022………………………………………… let’s draw on the self-declared wisdom of Time magazine for guidance. (This is a publication that’s now in the Big Tech/Big Media” camp as it’s now owned by the CEO of Salesforce.com). In the same issue, another article gushed over the fact that corporations are poised to dominate the exploration and use of space:“….NASA made it clear that when that clock does toll, the U.S. will be getting out of the space station game, likely for good. Instead, the space agency signed a $415.6 million seed money deal with three companies — Blue Origin, Nanoracks, and Northrop Grumman — to develop their own private space stations, on which NASA and other customers could lease space for professional crews and tourists. The article goes on to point out that, in a press statement, a NASA spokesperson boasted that….
” NASA is once again leading the way to commercialize space activities” and that “we are partnering with U.S. companies to develop the space destinations where people can visit, live, and work.”
It seems abundantly clear that the top-down corporate model of governance is fundamentally anti-democratic by its very nature and the waning power and direction of our democratic institutions worldwide has much to do with this fact.
…. uncontrolled and uncontrollable market forces are no substitute for thoughtful and enlightened public policy and democratic norms. Granted, this is in short supply these days but allowing corporations to fill that void is hardly a solution.
As our glorious planet continues to experience crisis after crisis, it’s sad and troubling that there seems to be no shortage of profiteers looking to make an easy buck off the spoils. It seems abundantly clear that the top-down corporate model of governance is fundamentally anti-democratic by its very nature and the waning power and direction of our democratic institutions worldwide has much to do with this fact……. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/07/06/the-corporatization-of-just-about-everything/
Tom Valovic is a journalist and the author of Digital Mythologies (Rutgers University Press), a series of essays that explored emerging social and political issues raised by the advent of the Internet. He has served as a consultant to the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Tom has written about the effects of technology on society for a variety of publications including Columbia University’s Media Studies Journal, the Boston Globe, and the San Francisco Examiner, among others.
Why would anybody invest in Sizewell C nuclear plant? – An unlikely proposition?
Why would anybody invest in Sizewell C nuclear plant? – An unlikely
proposition? The Government has tasked Barclays Bank with finding investors
for the proposed Sizewell C (SZC) plant.
Reports surfaced in the Mail on
Sunday that Centrica is planning on taking a stake in the company. Perhaps
the fact that the report emerged in the Mail on Sunday rather than the
Financial Times is a sign that the decision is still subject to vagaries.
This report has me scratching my head so hard it hurts!
Why would Centrica,
which in 2016 abandoned plans to invest in Hinkley C partly because of
‘the lengthening time frame for a return on the capital invested in a
project of this scale‘ now opt for an investment in SZC? After all the
doubt about return on investments in SZC may be viewed as, if anything,
even more threadbare, to that of Hinkley C.
100% Renewables 7th July 2022
-
Archives
- July 2026 (308)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
-
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




