nuclear-news

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

As renewable energy powers ahead, the UK government’s prospects for funding nuclear power projects look very risky

China’s cash for UK nuclear plants is in doubt   https://climatenewsnetwork.net/chinas-cash-for-uk-nuclear-plants-is-in-doubt/

August 16th, 2021, by Paul Brown  Cooler Sino-British relations mean China’s cash for UK nuclear plants is at risk

LONDON, 16 August, 2021 − A serious stumbling block now threatens the prospect of China’s cash for UK nuclear plants materialising − and also the likelihood of a successful outcome to COP26, the global climate conference which the British government is due to host later this year.

In order to finance the construction of nuclear stations that are supposed to generate up to 20% of the UK’s electricity, the British government needs Chinese money. Without it, the already prohibitively expensive projects may become completely unaffordable.

Neither the deeply indebted French government-owned company EDF, which is building two stations, each with twin reactors, nor the UK  government is prepared to underwrite the entire cost of the projects. This is because of the huge sums required − around £45 billion (US$62bn).

However, the UK government faces severe political pressure to end Chinese involvement, because of the perceived threat of ceding control over vital services such as the electricity supply.

Problematic deal

The problem for Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, is particularly acute as Britain is hosting COP26, this year’s UN climate conference, in Glasgow in November. Relations between the UK and China are already poor, in part because of disputes over democratic freedoms for the people of Hong Kong.

But with China the world’s largest carbon emitter, Johnson needs it onside if he is to have a chance of making COP26 the success it must be to avert catastrophic climate change.

The problem over funding the nuclear programme arises because of a deal struck in 2015 between the then British prime minister, David Cameron, and China’s president Xi Jinping.

That agreed that China would stump up one third of the £23bn ($32bn) cost of the Hinkley C nuclear power station in the West of England, and also pay 20% of the cost of another planned station, Sizewell C, on the east coast. In return the Chinese could then build a nuclear plant of their own design at Bradwell B in Essex, closer to London, and use it as a platform to export their Hualong HPR1000 reactor technology to the rest of the world

To President Xi the cost of helping to fund the French company to build nuclear stations in Britain was outweighed by the advantage of getting Chinese technology validated in the UK as a bridge to future exports.

Six years later, however, with the Hinkley Point project well under way and Sizewell C supposedly close to launch, the British government is now nervous about allowing the Chinese such a strong involvement in the UK’s nuclear secrets and the nation’s power supply.

Its dilemma, though, is that if the UK reneges on its 2015 agreement, then China could abandon both projects, leaving a financial black hole of many billions of pounds. Trades unions are horrified at the potential loss of jobs the possible cancellation of the projects would cause.

One alternative to Chinese funding is a UK nuclear tax which would be paid in advance by electricity users to fund the construction of the power stations. With power bills already due to rise by more than 10% in Britain before the end of 2021, this is unlikely to be an electorally popular solution.

Renewable competition

What will happen is anyone’s guess. Given Johnson’s well-known habit of postponing difficult decisions, and the looming COP26, it is likely that nothing will be announced until the crucial Glasgow talks are over. The French, in anticipation, have already announced that they are postponing the “final investment decision” on Sizewell C until next year.

Meanwhile the renewable energy industry, particularly offshore wind, is powering ahead with a massive construction programme. Its projects will all produce electricity far more cheaply than any of the UK’s proposed new nuclear stations.Last ditch attempts by the nuclear industry to put a green gloss on its proposals by persuading ministers that its spare electricity capacity can be used to make green hydrogen seem unlikely to succeed.Perhaps in time it will become obvious to Johnson that if banning Chinese involvement in British nuclear plants means they end up not being built that will be a bonus, because cheaper renewable energy will soon be available to fill any perceived gap in supply. − Climate News Network

August 19, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Shareholders of Georgia Power Co now at greater risk for Vogtle nuclear station’s escalating costs?

 Shareholders of Georgia Power Co. may be at more risk of shouldering the
utility’s share of cost overruns for the two new nuclear reactors being
built at Plant Vogtle. The Georgia Public Service Commission on Tuesday
approved an agreement between the unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co. and
commission staff that says the commission won’t agree that any expenses
above a $7.3 billion cap imposed in 2017 are “reasonable” until the end
of the project. “Since the company has exceeded the approved revised
capital cost of $7.3 billion, it is no longer appropriate for the
commission to verify and approve the dollars invested in the project,”
states the agreement approved by all five commissioners.

 News & Observer 17th Aug 2021

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article253546369.html

August 19, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

What were the USA’s costs for the Afghanistan war ?

The Costs of War,  WATSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Since invading Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has spent $2.26 trillion on the war, which includes operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Note that this total does not include funds that the United States government is obligated to spend on lifetime care for American veterans of this war, nor does it include future interest payments on money borrowed to fund the war.

The Costs of War Project also estimates that 241,000 people have died as a direct result of this war. These figures do not include deaths caused by disease, loss of access to food, water, infrastructure, and/or other indirect consequences of the war.

The figures for Afghanistan are part of the larger costs of the U.S. post-9/11 wars, which extend to Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere. The numbers are approximations based on the reporting of several data sources. 

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-budgetary-costs-date-us-war-afghanistan-2001-2021

August 17, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The War On Afghanistan Was A $2 Trillion Scam

Americans will hate whoever they’re told to—Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, China. After a while they don’t even remember why they hate them, they just do. Getting the war machine going is easy, just throw the press a few bones about ‘terrorism’ and soon enough there’s bones in the ground. The New York Times will even make terrorism up. CNN will film the bombs raining down. It’s a great, hateful show.

It’s important to understand Afghanistan not as a $2.26 trillion failure of good intentions but a $2.26 trillion success of bad. This is what America does. This is who Americans are. They have reduced war to its most crass objective, a way to profit from misery. Afghanistan was no mistake. It was a very successful scam.–

America just pumped-and-dumped an entire country,  https://indi.ca/the-us-military-is-a-deadly-scam/

The American war on Afghanistan was a $2.26 trillion scam. Somebody pocketed all that money, and it certainly wasn’t the people of Afghanistan. That amount is 115 years of Afghan GDP, and it mostly went to arms dealers, the corrupt US military, and corrupt US politicians. Meanwhile the Taliban gets to keep the weapons. This wasn’t just a waste, it was a gigantic fraud. 

Afghanistan was not an isolated incident. This is the American war machine, working as intended, grinding bones and printing blood money. America has reduced war to one simple fact: war costs money and somebody’s gonna get paid. This is their galaxy brain idea, starting wars with no objective just to make money for arms dealers. You don’t even have to win. In fact, it’s better if you spend 20 years losing. That’s the beauty of the scam.

Just follow the money. American taxpayers have been defrauded well over $6.4 trillion in their wars ‘of’ terror alone. People keep saying this money was ‘lost’ or ‘wasted’ but it didn’t go nowhere. American people had their pockets picked while saluting the flag. This is what America does. This is who they are. The vaunted American military is a fraud.

A Simple Scam

It’s a simple scam, really. 

  1. Pick some random poor country (and get your people to hate it)
  2. Attack it
  3. Profit

The entire war machine is an endless grift. Donors throw a little money at Congressmen, Congressmen throw infinite money at the military, and some poor person ends up crushed under a $25,000 bomb. What does it accomplish? Who cares? We made money on the bomb.

In Afghanistan, the waste was insane(ly profitable). The American military transported fuel via helicopter. They kept every single car, truck, and tank idling 24 hours a day. They spent $1 million dollars per soldier shipping Burger Kings, gyms, and bottled water across the Arabian Sea. Nobody cared. The government just kept giving money and the military kept spending it. War machine go brrrr. It wasn’t their money and it’s wasn’t their lives. It was all a bloody scam. 

The original article here posts  a 2019 Afghanistan document dump which everyone has forgotten about

America invading Afghanistan was just like the mafia taking over a legitimate business and bleeding it dry. The American military is just a global racket of torturers and thugs, doing bust-outs on an international scale.

Suckers And Losers

Continue reading →

August 17, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | 2 Comments

The importance of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and of coming to terms with USA’s nuclear history.

When Nuclear Fallout Comes Home.   Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (NM03) spoke on the importance of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and coming to terms with our nuclear history.   https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/when-nuclear-fallout-comes-home-191720by Harry Tarpey      Whether in New Mexico, Guam, or the Marshall Islands, the consequences of uranium mining, atmospheric testing, and nuclear weapons manufacturing continue to impact communities around the world, with little awareness from the international community.

I know people who have been impacted by uranium mining, and by the fallout and nuclear testing, so this is not abstract,” said Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández of New Mexico’s 3rd District, who recently sat down for an interview with Press the Button. “These are people I know, these are families I know—you can’t ignore it.”

Leger Fernández is a leading advocate in Congress for the extension and expansion of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), reforms that would establish a more robust and easier to navigate compensation program for the victims of nuclear radiation in the United States and its territories.

RECA is a federal statute established in 1990 as a mechanism to compensate individuals whose health or livelihood was affected by unintended radiation exposure due to our nuclear weapons complex. To date, it has compensated over $2.2 billion to tens of thousands of claimants suffering from health ailments caused by exposure to radiation.

 These include atomic veterans, downwinders, and individuals working on atmospheric nuclear tests and in uranium mines.

Though many of these recipients have undoubtedly benefited from the program, Leger Fernández and her colleagues are recommending several improvements to the statute to expand its impact.

One such change she is championing is an increase in the amount of compensation provided per individual grant. “Right now, [RECA payments] are $50,000. That’s not sufficient, so we’re going to raise it to $150,000.” The legislation she will be co-sponsoring, if passed, would expand the limited scope of eligibility that RECA currently maintains to include geographic areas and age groups not currently covered by the statute.

When RECA was first designed, “it had a very limited area where, if you happen to be exposed in these certain counties, you got compensation. But we know that it’s not just a few counties that were impacted,” argues Leger Fernández, “we need to make sure they are all entitled to the compensation.”

Although this expansion would no doubt have a positive impact within her district, Leger Fernández views it as an issue that resonates well beyond her constituency: “I want to take on this fight because this impacts not just New Mexicans, but people elsewhere, who were exposed to radiation from testing, from the development of the weapons, through no fault of their own are

now suffering the consequences. We as a government who inflicted this harm cannot stand back and say ‘too bad’—we must act.”

With RECA set to either expire or be reauthorized in July 2022, Leger Fernández views the year ahead as an important opportunity to reassess and refine RECA to ensure its continued effectiveness. “We need to take this moment and re-authorize the act,” she told guest host Lily Adams, “but also, when we look at it, ask ‘where is [RECA] efficient, and what do we need to do to make it better?”

August 16, 2021 Posted by | employment, health, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hidden in the U.S. Infrastructure Bill, a fat subsidy for the nuclear industry, and another $50 billion in the offing.

Critics Decry $12 Billion For Nuclear In Infrastructure Bill  https://www.upr.org/post/critics-decry-12-billion-nuclear-infrastructure-bill#stream/0, By ERIC TEGETHOFF • AUG 12, 2021  The U.S. Senate has passed a massive infrastructure bill, and buried within the package is $12 billion for the nuclear industry, but critics said the money would be better spent elsewhere.Half of the money is reserved for nuclear facilities under threat of shutting down due to economic factors. The other half is for research and development, such as on the small modular nuclear reactor model being built in Idaho.

Tim Judson, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said the industry as a whole is struggling, with even the Idaho project being scaled back.
“By propping up the existing reactors and preventing them from being replaced with renewable energy, the nuclear industry’s essentially trying to keep sort of a foothold in the energy system until they can try to ram some of these new reactor projects like the one in Idaho through, if it ever happens,” Judson said.

He hopes the U.S. House makes changes to the investments in nuclear. The industry and some environmental groups have touted nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels as the country moves toward clean energy sources.

Judson noted it is a big deal many nuclear power plants need a bailout, adding it is as if nuclear companies are holding cities and states hostage.
“It’s been this kind of perpetual process of a power plant’s closure being announced, the company demanding a bailout, the state not knowing what else to do, so it gives the bailout,” Judson said. “And this federal subsidy is going to be the same thing. There’s no planning procedure included in this legislation.”

He argued there needs to be more consideration about what to do with old power plants and aging infrastructure.

Judson pointed out another bill in Congress could provide up to $50 billion in subsidies for the industry over the next decade.
According to his organization’s research, it will not mean any new jobs and the money would be more beneficially spent on electricity projects such as renewables, transmission systems and battery storage.

“If you spent that $50 billion on those things, it would create more than 60,000 new jobs,” Judson said. “And that’s more than four times the number of workers that are employed at these nuclear plants that would get bailed out.”

August 14, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Strong call for New York City to legislate against investment of pension funds into nuclear weapons production

“We call on Speaker Corey Johnson and the City Council to vote and urgently pass Res. 976 and Intro.1621 to divest pension funds from nuclear weapon producers and reaffirm New York City as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. The legislation introduced by Council member Danny Dromm already inspired a historic hearing in City Hall and has the support of a majority of the City Council. As New Yorkers this is our moment to make hope and peace possible for a new generation.”

Nuclear disarmament campaigners press for legislation in New York City on 76th Anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings.  Pressenza, 13.08.21 – US, United States – Pressenza New York   In a commemoration of the August 6 and August 9, 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that was both somber and spirited, New York City-based nuclear disarmament advocates assembled outside the Municipal Building in downtown New York City. Advocates joined members of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), 2017 Nobel Peace Laureate in honoring New York nuclear disarmament heroes and urging Council Speaker Corey Johnson to reaffirm NYC as a nuclear weapons free zone.

Speakers included Michie Takeuchi, second generation Hiroshima Hibakusha survivor, Robert Croonquist, Hibakusha Stories Project founder, Bud Courtney of the Catholic Worker, Dr. Emily Welty, Director of Peace and Justice Studies at Pace University, Seth Shelden, ICAN representative at the United Nations and Brendan Fay ogranizer with NYCAN (New York Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons).

Dr. Emily Welty reminded the gathering that the site for the Vigil is profound with history, because the development of the atomic bombs began across the street from City Hall at the Manhattan Project headquarters, at 270 Broadway.

In remarks Brendan Fay, Irish gay activist and nuclear disarmament advocate highlighted the legacy of LGBTQ New Yorkers in the global movement for nuclear disarmament.

  • Bayard Rustin (1912-1987) highlighted the connection between colonialism, racism and nuclear weapons and traveled to Algeria in 1959 to protest French nuclear testing.
  • James Baldwin (1924 –1987) as a member of National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy was among the leading speakers at the 1961 Peace Rally in Washington, DC. He said, “What am I doing here? Only those who would fail to see the relationship between the fight for civil rights and the struggle for world peace would be surprised to see me. Both fights are the same.”
  • David McReynolds (1929-2018) was the first openly gay presidential candidate, a socialist and lifelong pacifist. During his 40-year career with the War Resisters League he became an international hero of the nuclear disarmament movement.
  • Leslie Cagan (b. 1947) was a lead organizer of the largest disarmament rally in US history, the June 12, 1982 Rally Against the Arms Race.
  • Peter Ciccchino (1960-2000) was arrested over two dozen times for peace, for nuclear disarmament, and for housing and human rights.

Fay thanked Council Member Danny Dromm (District 25) for introducing the nuclear divestment legislation in 2019. “Council Member Dromm follows the steps of previous council members including Council President and civil rights leader Paul O’Dwyer (1907 – 1998) who was a strong advocate for nuclear disarmament in City Hall.
Holding a poster of African American Civil rights leader and nuclear disarmament advocate Bayard Rustin,

Fay said, “As LGBTQ+ New Yorkers we join the rest of the human family this August 6th and August 9th in raising our voices to demand a world without nuclear weapons, for the sake of the children, for a future of hope. On this 76th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we say there is no Pride in bomb production. There is no Pride in raising the rainbow flag while investing in weapons of death.”

What of the nuclear weapons New York worker pensions are invested in? They are built to divide, harm, maim, kill. $475 million (0.25%) of New York worker pension funds are currently invested in the production of nuclear weapons. Our worker pensions must no longer be used as weapons of war. We are nurses, doctors, teachers, sanitation workers, firefighters, social workers, artists – our common cause is justice and peace……..

Fay said, “We call on Speaker Corey Johnson and the City Council to vote and urgently pass Res. 976 and Intro.1621 to divest pension funds from nuclear weapon producers and reaffirm New York City as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. The legislation introduced by Council member Danny Dromm already inspired a historic hearing in City Hall and has the support of a majority of the City Council. As New Yorkers this is our moment to make hope and peace possible for a new generation.”…….

Resolution 976 calls on the Comptroller to instruct pension funds to divest from companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons (approximately $475 million dollars) and re-affirms New York City as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.

Introduction 1621 establishes a Nuclear Disarmament Advisory Committee to advise the City Council.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by 122 countries in 2017, makes nuclear weapons comprehensively illegal and became international law on January 22, 2021.  https://www.pressenza.com/2021/08/nuclear-disarmament-campaigners-press-for-legislation-in-new-york-city-on-76th-anniversary-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-bombings/

August 14, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Utah Taxpayers Association is very wary of Small Nuclear Reactors

Imagine you picked up a gallon of milk that was labeled at $4, but by the time you made it to the cash register the price had gone up. Worse still, there was an automatic agreement that forced you to buy with no guarantee that the lid would ever open or that the price wouldn’t increase again by the time you had to pay. That’s essentially the situation in which UAMPS is putting municipalities.

Imagine you picked up a gallon of milk that was labeled at $4, but by the time you made it to the cash register the price had gone up. Worse still, there was an automatic agreement that forced you to buy with no guarantee that the lid would ever open or that the price wouldn’t increase again by the time you had to pay. That’s essentially the situation in which UAMPS is putting municipalities.

Utah cities shouldn’t gamble on nuclear power  https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/8/11/22620772/utah-cities-shouldnt-gamble-with-taxpayer-funds-on-modular-nuclear-power-plant

An Idaho project is a financial risk that is best borne by the private sector. By Rusty Cannon  Aug 11, 2021, ”…………..  one of our critical missions is to protect taxpayers when it comes to the use of public funds, and we believe strongly that the taxpayers and communities of Utah should not act as venture capitalists for risky bets.

The bet that’s on the table now for Utah municipalities is nuclear. Specifically, it’s a type of nuclear called “small modular,” and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) is recruiting towns and communities around the West to pay for it. The project, if it happens, would be located in Idaho.

Last fall, seven Utah cities from Logan to Lehi wisely withdrew their support for the UAMPS nuclear project due to financial risks that their residents should not be asked to accept. But many municipalities, such as Brigham City, Hyrum, Hurricane, and Washington City, are still gambling with their taxpayers’ dollars.

If modular nuclear power is ready for market, let the private sector show it by putting up its money. Governments ought to stay out of it, particularly when risking public funds.

The participation commitments UAMPS has been getting from Utah communities to buy the power come with required upfront payments from residents for a product that is full of uncertainty. The developer — Oregon-based NuScale — hasn’t built a plant like this before, its design keeps changing, and it’s nearly a decade away from even being potentially operational.

While we still believe the project is risky and that municipalities should withdraw, any investment of public dollars must be done in the open with public scrutiny. Sadly, the information exchange between UAMPS and its potential payers has been opaque. The public receives only a trickle of information, and it’s vague at best.

When we do see information, it’s troubling. For example, the project’s budget has ballooned from an initial $3.1 billion to a more recent estimate of $6.1 billion. It was only recently uncovered that the company that was going to operate the plant, Energy Northwest, backed out in March.

The financial sand is shifting in other ways, as well. In late June, UAMPS suddenly decided to reduce the number of modules at the power plant by half because they’ve struggled to get more communities to commit. That led to a hike in the power price that UAMPS had been promising, putting still-participating municipalities in a bind.

Imagine you picked up a gallon of milk that was labeled at $4, but by the time you made it to the cash register the price had gone up. Worse still, there was an automatic agreement that forced you to buy with no guarantee that the lid would ever open or that the price wouldn’t increase again by the time you had to pay. That’s essentially the situation in which UAMPS is putting municipalities.

Plenty of Utah city council members have listened to their constituents and said “thanks but no thanks.” Bountiful, Kaysville, Murray, Lehi and Heber were some of the largest subscribers to the modular nuclear proposal, but have since bowed out.

However, other communities remain officially interested in this particular power project, and are keeping it in their shopping cart so far. If you reside in these communities, pay attention and watch your wallet. There may still be time to withdraw from the project.

Utah municipalities should remain conservative watchdogs of tax dollars. Say yes to prudent and transparent use of public money. Say no to unproven technology and murky promises that keep shifting. At this point modular nuclear power is a venture, not a product. So let private venture capital come in and pay for it, not Utah taxpayers.

Rusty Cannon is President of the Utah Taxpayers Association

August 12, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Why Are We Still Building Nuclear Weapons? Follow the Money

Why Are We Still Building Nuclear Weapons? Follow the Money, Forbes, William Hartung, 11 Aug 21,

The FY 2022 Pentagon budget proposal includes billions of dollars for new nuclear delivery vehicles, with a handful of prime contractors as the primary beneficiaries. For example, Northrop Grumman’s NOC+0.9% twelve largest subcontractors for its new ICBM include some of the nation’s largest defense companies, including Lockheed Martin LMT+0.3%, General Dynamics GD+0.8%, L3Harris, Aerojet Rocketdyne AJRD+0.2%, Honeywell, Bechtel, and the Collins Aerospace division of Raytheon RTX+1.1% Technologies.  Other beneficiaries of the funding of new nuclear delivery vehicles include Raytheon (a nuclear-armed cruise missile), General Dynamics (ballistic missile submarines), Lockheed Martin (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), and Northrop Grumman – again – for the new nuclear-armed bombers.

This month marks the 76th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, events that resulted in the immediate deaths of well over 100,000 people and underscored the devastating consequences of building, deploying, and using nuclear weapons.  Those attacks should have served as a wake-up call on the need to control and eliminate these potential world-ending weapons, but determined efforts by scientists, political leaders, policy advocates, and grassroots advocates around the world have yet to abolish them……………
 the international community, under the leadership of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), has created and brought into force the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which has been signed by 86 nations and ratified by 55 of them. This is an historic accomplishment, but the real culprits – the major nuclear weapons states that possess the vast bulk of the world’s nuclear weapons – have yet to sign onto the measure.

The United States maintains an active nuclear stockpile of roughly 4,000 nuclear weapons, including over 1,500 deployed warheads. Russia’s stockpile is comparable, at roughly 4,400, while China follows with roughly 300 strategic nuclear warheads. Despite its considerably smaller arsenal, recent revelations regarding China’s construction of new silos for long-range nuclear missiles are cause for real concern as they raise the risk of accelerating the nuclear arms race at great risk to the future of the planet. These developments demand dialogue to roll back the production of new nuclear weapons systems, leading to reductions in the size of global arsenals and the ultimate elimination of this existential threat.

The continued development and deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is of particular concern. As former Secretary of Defense William Perry has noted, ICBMs are “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world” because a president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch them upon warning of a nuclear attack, increasing the possibility of an accidental nuclear war based on a false alarm. 
Given all of the above, why is the United States still building nuclear weapons, more than seven decades after the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The U.S. is not alone in building a new generation of nuclear weapons – Russia and China are doing so as well. But the Pentagon’s 30-year plan to build new nuclear-armed bombers, missiles, and submarines – along with new nuclear warheads to go with them at a cost of up to $2 trillion – is the height of folly and an unnecessary, grave risk to the lives of current and future generations. A major reason for this misguided policy can be summed up in a phrase – there is money to be made in perpetuating the nuclear arms race.

The FY 2022 Pentagon budget proposal includes billions of dollars for new nuclear delivery vehicles, with a handful of prime contractors as the primary beneficiaries. For example, Northrop Grumman’s NOC+0.9% twelve largest subcontractors for its new ICBM include some of the nation’s largest defense companies, including Lockheed Martin LMT+0.3%, General Dynamics GD+0.8%, L3Harris, Aerojet Rocketdyne AJRD+0.2%, Honeywell, Bechtel, and the Collins Aerospace division of Raytheon RTX+1.1% Technologies.  Other beneficiaries of the funding of new nuclear delivery vehicles include Raytheon (a nuclear-armed cruise missile), General Dynamics (ballistic missile submarines), Lockheed Martin (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), and Northrop Grumman – again – for the new nuclear-armed bomber.

Additional recipients of nuclear weapons-related funding are the firms that run the nuclear warhead complex. Major contractors include Honeywell and Bechtel, which run key facilities for the development and production of nuclear warheads.

 Nuclear weapons contractors spend millions of dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying efforts every year in their efforts to shape nuclear weapons policy and spending. While not all of this spending is devoted to lobbying on nuclear weapons programs, these expenditures are indicative of the political clout they can bring to bear on Congress as needed to sustain and expand the budgets for their nuclear-related programs. 

The major nuclear weapons contractors made a total of over $119 million in campaign contributions from 2012 to 2020, including over $31 million in 2020 alone. The companies spent $57.9 million on lobbying in 2020 and employed 380 lobbyists among them.

The only way to be truly safe from nuclear weapons is to eliminate them altogether, as called for in the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As noted above, the major nuclear powers have yet to sign onto the treaty but pressing them to do so should be a central component of efforts to rein in nuclear dangers. 

It’s time that we stopped allowing special interest lobbying and corporate profits to stand in the way of a more sensible nuclear policy. The future of humanity depends on it.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhartung/2021/08/10/why-are-we-still-building-nuclear-weapons—-follow-the-money/?sh=442b7ad15888

August 12, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, weapons and war | Leave a comment

New ”Natrium” nuclear reactors – a very risky gamble.

A July 2021 Foreign Affairs article reports that in the past sixty years eight countries have spent $100 billion to produce sodium cooled fast reactors such as the one proposed for Wyoming. All have failed. The money’s spent and the lights are out.

While the Natrium design posits less risk of a meltdown, the sodium coolant is under high pressure and is explosive in the event of any breach in the containment area. And while Natrium plants produce less radioactive waste than traditional nuclear plants, there’s still the necessity to safely and permanently store this waste. How much will it cost? World Nuclear Industry Status Report’s editor Mycle Schneider says, “No one knows…because there is no functioning permanent storage facility.” Nowhere.

How much power are we talking about anyway? Writing for Canary Media, Eric Wesoff reported that in 2020, 2.4 gigawatts of new nuclear power plants were installed worldwide while there were 100 gigawatts of new solar and 60 gigawatts of new wind power generators. Meanwhile, old nuclear plants close—Indian Power in New York, Diablo Canyon in California, Exelon’s Byron and Dresden plants in Illinois. What do we do with decommissioned nuclear plants? A cooling tower in Germany has become a climbing wall.

Romtvedt: Proposal for nuclear power calls for caution  https://trib.com/opinion/columns/romtvedt-proposal-for-nuclear-power-calls-for-caution/article_ecb135f0-1378-5728-9992-abd11b681ba4.html, David Romtvedt, Aug 10, 2021

In conjunction with PacifiCorp, Rocky Mountain Power’s parent company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway Energy, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, Inc; and TerraPower, a nuclear reactor design company founded by Bill Gates, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon has announced his support for the construction of a nuclear reactor demonstration plant in Wyoming. According to Berkshire Hathaway, the project is intended to “validate the design, construction and operational features” of TerraPower’s Natrium nuclear plant design which uses liquid sodium as a coolant rather than water.

Governor Gordon believes that Natrium offers a safe, reliable solution to Wyoming’s economic woes, saying, “I am thrilled to see Wyoming selected for this demonstration pilot project as our great state is the perfect place for this type of innovative utility facility and our experienced workforce is looking forward to the jobs this project will provide.”

So the benefits of the nuclear plant are said to be increased economic security and diminished environmental risk than with other forms of nuclear power plants. But it’s not so clear. Both in construction and operation, Natrium nuclear plants require uniquely skilled workers employing specialized materials and building techniques. Other economic issues include the temporary nature of construction work, long lead times for safety and licensing reviews (Natrium is not licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), and diminished severance tax revenues as a result of the shift from coal to nuclear.

There’s also the fuel—Natrium uses high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU). Power Magazine reports that there is no current supply of HALEU and that it will take at least seven years with sufficient demand to develop a fuel cycle infrastructure. Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientist cautions that Russia is currently the only source of suitable fuel. In whatever quantity, the fuel is not likely to come from Wyoming uranium mines.

After construction there’s generation. World Nuclear Industry Status Report has recorded the changing costs of electric generation per kilowatt hour (in US cents) between 2009 and 2020. They are: solar—35.9 to 3.7, down 90%; wind—13.5 to 4.0, down 70%; gas—8.3 to 5.9, down 29%; coal—11.1 to 11.2, up 1%; and nuclear 12.3 to 16.3, up 33%. Nuclear is the most expensive way to generate electricity.

And time—the Wyoming proposal projects seven years to completion. Since no new nuclear power plant with a license application submitted since 1975 has yet begun operation, we may question the Wyoming timeline. More time equals more cost. Georgia Power’s Vogtle nuclear plants are years behind schedule with costs having risen from $14 billion to over $25 billion. But it may not matter as Georgia Power can charge cost overruns to its customers—the more the project is over budget, the more the company profits. In Florida, Duke Power, after seeing a cost increase from $5 billion to $22 billion, abandoned a Natrium nuclear project after passing $800 million dollars in excess costs to ratepayers.

A July 2021 Foreign Affairs article reports that in the past sixty years eight countries have spent $100 billion to produce sodium cooled fast reactors such as the one proposed for Wyoming. All have failed. The money’s spent and the lights are out.

While the Natrium design posits less risk of a meltdown, the sodium coolant is under high pressure and is explosive in the event of any breach in the containment area. And while Natrium plants produce less radioactive waste than traditional nuclear plants, there’s still the necessity to safely and permanently store this waste. How much will it cost? World Nuclear Industry Status Report’s editor Mycle Schneider says, “No one knows…because there is no functioning permanent storage facility.” Nowhere.

I’m guessing that Governor Gordon’s decision was driven in part by his hope to protect the lives and livelihoods of Wyoming workers. But generating radioactive waste without a procedure for safe permanent storage of that waste will protect no one—not unemployed coal miners, not me, not the governor.

How much power are we talking about anyway? Writing for Canary Media, Eric Wesoff reported that in 2020, 2.4 gigawatts of new nuclear power plants were installed worldwide while there were 100 gigawatts of new solar and 60 gigawatts of new wind power generators. Meanwhile, old nuclear plants close—Indian Power in New York, Diablo Canyon in California, Exelon’s Byron and Dresden plants in Illinois. What do we do with decommissioned nuclear plants? A cooling tower in Germany has become a climbing wall.

The questions loom. If I were a betting man, given initial costs, cost overruns, lost tax revenue, the increasing viability of renewables, the history of nuclear failure, and the health and safety hazards surrounding nuclear waste, I’d pause before I put my money on nuclear power. Not being a betting man, I wouldn’t consider it.

David Romtvedt is a writer and musician from Buffalo, Wyoming. A former activist with the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, he serves as a board member for the Powder River Basin Resource Council.

August 12, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

French nuclear company EDF is postponing its decision on whether or not to go ahead with the Sizewell nuclear project in Britain

 

EDF delays final decision on Sizewell C. French energy giant now expects to leave it as late as 2023 before deciding whether to proceed with Suffolk nuclear power project. The timeline for EDF to decide whether to go ahead with the £20bn Sizewell C power station has slipped amid a lengthy planning approval process that is playing out as funding negotiations with ministers continue.

The French power giant now expects to make a final investment decision on the Suffolk plant at the end of 2022 or in 2023, compared to its previous expectations of mid-2022. EDF is in negotiations with the Government about a funding deal for Sizewell C and will also need external investors. Legislation is likely to be brought forward to allow developers to recoup costs during construction from household energy bills.


However, talks have been overshadowed in recent weeks by reports that ministers are seeking ways to block CGN from Sizewell and future UK nuclear projects. CGN has a 20pc development stake in Sizewell with an option to participate in the construction phase.

 Telegraph 8th Aug 2021

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/08/08/edf-delays-final-decision-sizewell-c/

August 10, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Comparing the costs of nuclear and solar power

Solar challenging nuclear as potential climate change solution https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/09/solar-challenging-nuclear-as-potential-climate-change-solution/

Research suggests that we can power 80% of the United States with wind, solar, and 12 hours of energy storage, but the replacement of nuclear power plants hasn’t been financially viable. Is that about to change?AUGUST 9, 2021 JOHN FITZGERALD WEAVER  Nuclear power delivers almost 20% of all electricity in the United States, and about 50% [ if you don’t count the uranium-nuclear fuel chain] of all low-emission electricity. Moreover, the United States has almost 100 nuclear power units operating more than 90% of the time, providing a steady base of power generation.

But moving forward, it seems nuclear has lost its swagger. Price increases, project delays, and cancellations have caused what may prove to be generational damage to nuclear power’s reputation. pv magazine USA has previously reported on industry pricing models, showing nuclear’s lagging pricing.

Now, Georgia Power’s Vogtle Unit 3 and Unit 4 – the nation’s only nuclear generating units currently under construction – have announced further delays and price increases. Conservative cost estimates suggest the two 1.117 GW facilities will require at least $30 billion to complete, including $3 billion in finance costs and $27 billion in construction costs.

Solar+storage costs

As solar and energy storage professionals, we must be conscious of the limitations of the sun, and the cost of energy storage. As we all know, the sun also sets. And while research suggests we can power 80% of the U.S. with wind, solar, and 12 hours of energy storage, being able to replace a nuclear power plant that runs 24/7/365 in wind, rain, snow, and sleet simply hasn’t been financially viable.

But is it today?

The chart above [ on original] shows the price of solar panels from 1976 through the end of 2019. Here, we see prices fall by more than 99.8% from over $100 per watt down to nearly $0.20 per watt. Below, we see the price of battery packs starting in 2010 and ending in 2020, based on data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Here, we see costs fall from $1,191/kWh to $137/kWh – a price decrease of greater than 88%.

In both cases, we can expect prices to continue trending downward in both the middle and long term. And so, what can we expect to pay when we replace a nuclear power plant with solar power plus batteries?

Cash to spend

The chart above [ on original] shows the price of solar panels from 1976 through the end of 2019. Here, we see prices fall by more than 99.8% from over $100 per watt down to nearly $0.20 per watt. Below, we see the price of battery packs starting in 2010 and ending in 2020, based on data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Here, we see costs fall from $1,191/kWh to $137/kWh – a price decrease of greater than 88%.

In both cases, we can expect prices to continue trending downward in both the middle and long term. And so, what can we expect to pay when we replace a nuclear power plant with solar power plus batteries?

Cash to spend

In order to replace the two nuclear plants while the sun is down, the batteries would need to replicate two 1.117 GW power sources for 16 hours. The total energy storage capacity would be 39.3 GWh, after we add an extra 10% for safe measure.

Roughly speaking, the total cost of these solar+storage facilities would be:

  • $8.4 billion for 10.55 GWdc of solar power, fully installed at $0.80/watt
  • $527 million for hypothetical power grid upgrades at $0.05/watt
  • $7.8 billion for 39.3 GWh of energy storage fully installed at $200/kWh
  • Around $16.8 billion grand total, no incentives

So, Georgia, pv magazine USA just saved you more than $13 billion (as of today, anyway).

Some caveats

It’s almost certain that a solar facility of this magnitude – roughly 27,000 acres, or around 0.07% of Georgia’s land – would be split among many landowners in the state. If land lease rates in Georgia are comparable to what  might be earned in Pennsylvania, the project could provide as much as $27 million per year in income to Georgia landowners for decades to come.

Furthermore, the solar power plants would start generating electricity and revenue within about three years of the first signature, and two years after groundbreaking. The new Vogtle reactors began construction in 2013 (planning began much earlier), and are projected to complete in 2022-23.

With these considerations in mind, the repowering costs to get a solar+storage facility to a 40 to 80-year lifetime would likely be offset by the fact that the solar facility will enter service at least eight years earlier than the equivalent nuclear site. Additionally, during the solar plant’s operating lifetime, it saves massive amounts of regular operations and maintenance costs, 

 as well as specialist engineer labor costs. The nuclear facility will easily last 40 years, and potentially as long as 80. However, the ongoing operations and maintenance costs are significant, as well as upgrades and equipment replacements that start to become necessary after 40 years. And sometimes, those $1 billion dollar upgrades go wrong, and a nuclear power plant gets trashed.

When we do repower the batteries and solar panels, they almost certainly will be cheaper, and operate at a higher efficiency, likely stretching the life of the solar facility to 50+ years. Again, this solar+storage facility would generate 20% more juice in the summer (when the power is needed most in Georgia) because we oversized it for the winter.

In the end, it would be best if we had a healthy ecosystem of clean energy generation systems that include nuclear [but nuclear is not clean]. However, if we’re going to debate the costs of nukes vs. solar, then it is no longer a discussion.

August 10, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, renewable, USA | 5 Comments

Complicit – The countries, companies and think tanks that support the deadly nuclear arms trade

The world spends $137,000 a minute on nuclear weapons

Complicit — Beyond Nuclear International 8 Aug 21, The countries, companies and think tanks that support the deadly nuclear arms trade
From ICAN
A new report from ICAN — Complicit: 2020 Global Nuclear Weapons spending — names names and produces some horrifying spending numbers, made all the more immoral by the desperate needs around the world due to the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the ever worsening conditions brought on by the climate crisis.
As the report notes, “In 2020, during the worst global pandemic in a century, nine nuclear-armed states spent $72.6 billion on their nuclear weapons, more than $137,000 per minute, an inflation adjusted increase of $1.4 billion from last year.”

It goes on to ask the obvious question: Why? The answer lies in the profits to be made by the world’s nuclear weapons companies, not to mention the funding flowing to a few think tanks, some of which have missions that should make taking this money unacceptable. “Not only does this report reveal the massive spending on nuclear weapons during the worst global pandemic in a century, it also shines a light on the shadowy connection between the private companies building nuclear weapons, lobbyists and think tanks,” wrote ICAN’s Susi Snyder in an email to launch the report.

She also narrates this short video above that explains the findings.

“The exchange of money and influence, from countries to companies to lobbyists and think tanks, sustains and maintains a global arsenal of catastrophically destructive weapons. Each person and organisation in this cycle is complicit in threatening life as we know it and wasting resources desperately needed to address real threats to human health and safety”, says the report’s executive summary. It goes on:

“The $72.6 billion spent on nuclear weapons was split between governmental departments and private companies. Companies in France, the United Kingdom and the United States received $27.7 billion from nuclear-weapon-related contracts in 2020, of which $14.8 billion was new.

“Those companies then funded think tanks that research and write about nuclear weapons policies. At least twelve major think tanks that research and write about nuclear weapons in India, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States received collectively between $5 million and $10 million from companies that produce nuclear weapons. 

“The CEOs of companies that produce nuclear weapons sit on their advisory boards and are listed as ‘partners’ on their websites.

“And to make sure the enormous budgets are approved to pay for these contracts, those same companies hire lobbyists. In 2020, nuclear weapons producers spent $117 million in lobbying on defence. For every $1 spent lobbying, an average of $236 in nuclear weapon contract money came back.

“Nuclear-armed states spent an obscene amount of money on illegal weapons of mass destruction in 2020, while the majority of the world’s countries support a global nuclear weapons ban. But the story doesn’t stop there. Companies, lobbyists and think tanks are complicit and deserve to be held accountable for their role in building and shaping a world with more than 13,000 life- ending weapons. We need to call on them to cut it out.”

The executive summary of the report then calls out the names of the countries, companies and think tanks complicit in effectively planning the world’s destruction.

Country Spending On Nuclear Weapons In 2020

The United States: $37.4 billion; $70,881 / minute

China: $10.1 billion; $19,149 / minute

Russia: $8 billion; $15,222 / minute

The United Kingdom: $6.2 billion; $11,769 / minute

France: $5.7 billion; $10,786 / minute

India: $2.48 billion; $4,567 / minute

Israel: $1.1 billion; $2,059 / minute

Pakistan: $1 billion; $1,968 / minute

North Korea: $667 million; $1,265 / minute

2020 Total: $72.6 billion; $137,666 / minute

2019 Total: $71.2 billion* $135,424 / minute

*Adjusted for inflation…………………..
more https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2021/08/08/complicit/

August 9, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, secrets,lies and civil liberties, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Costs of Ontario’s nuclear program will be the burden of the great-grandchildren of babies born in 2021.

“Someday this will all be yours!”


Ontario’s Unfunded Nuclear Decommissioning Liability Is In The $18–$27 Billion CAD Range   Clean Technica, By Michael Barnard 8 Aug 21, Ontario’s nuclear program will be a fiscal burden on Ontarian’s to the tune of around $40 billion CAD which will be spent through roughly 2135, finally being paid off by the great-grandchildren of babies born in 2021.

Late last year I worked up the likely amount of public money that would have to be thrown at the nuclear industry in order to successfully and safely decommission the 100 operational reactors and the now shut down ones. Unsurprisingly, the nuclear industry had been very optimistic in its estimates of decommissioning costs and timeframes, when the global empirical averages were trending to a billion USD and 100 years per reactor.

Recently I was asked by an Ontario journalist what I thought the likely situation in Ontario would be, and whether the decommissioning trusts were equally underfunded. I was unsurprised to find that Canada is in the same boat as the US, with highly optimistic schedule and cost projections which belie Canadian empirical experience with the CANDU reactor, and that the fund had nowhere near the money necessary for the job. Let’s run the numbers.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is the chunk of the provincial utility that was carved apart in the late 1990s by the Mike Harris Conservatives to handle generation alone. It operates 18 aging CANDU reactors across three sites: Bruce, Pickering, and Darlington.

OPG has a nuclear decommissioning fund of about $5 billion CAD or US$4 billion right now. If the experience of other countries on the actual cost of a billion USD per reactor and an actual timeline of decommissioning of a century holds true, and I see no reason why it doesn’t, that means that there is currently a $17.5 billion CAD gap in Ontario, in addition to the existing $19.3 billion CAD in debt still being serviced from their construction. When the government of the era split up the utility, it moved all of the debt off of the components and into general debt. One of the many appropriate and sensible things that the McGuinty Administration did in the 2000s, in addition to shutting down coal generation entirely, was to move the debt back into the utility and set about servicing it from utility bills.

Most of the reactors at Bruce Nuclear are aging out, with several over 40 years old and the remainder approaching 40. Darlington’s are around 30, so they have a bit of runway. Pickering’s reactors are going to be shut down in 2024 and 2025 and start decommissioning in 2028. While refurbishment could bridge Ontario’s for another 20 years in many cases, that’s expensive and typically won’t pass any economic viability assessment compared to alternatives.

The likelihood is that all reactors in Ontario will reach end of life by 2035, and be replaced by some combination of renewable energy and HVDC transmission from neighboring jurisdictions, with both Manitoba and Quebec having excellent, low-carbon hydroelectric to spare…………

So yes, Ontario’s nuclear program will be a fiscal burden on Ontarians to the tune of around $40 billion CAD which will be spent through roughly 2135, finally being paid off by the great-grandchildren of babies born in 2021.

Nuclear, the gift that keeps on giving. https://cleantechnica.com/2021/08/06/ontarios-unfunded-nuclear-decommissioning-liability-is-in-the-18-27-billion-cad-range/

August 9, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, wastes | 1 Comment

The ”Think Tanks” that get funding from nuclear weapons makers

The countries, companies and think tanks that support the deadly nuclear arms trade, From ICAN 8 Aug 21, ”’……………Think tank reported income from nuclear weapon producers

Atlantic Council: $835,000 – $1,724,998

Brookings Institution: $275,000 – $549,998

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: $50,000 – 199,998

Center for New American Security: $1,085,000 – $1,874,991

Center for Strategic and International Studies: $1,530,000 – $2,794,997

Fondation pour la recherche stratégique (FRS): amount not specified

French Institute of International Relations: amount not specified

Hudson Institute: $170,000 – $350,000

International Institute of Strategic Studies: $800,640 – $1,146,744

Observer Research Foundation: $71,539

Royal United Services Institute: $610,210 – $1,445,581

Stimson Center: $50,500

Total $5 – 10 million

Download the full report.

Headline photo: “Nuclear Nightmare – Open Your Eyes And Awake !” by Daniel Arrhakis is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0    https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3488978062

more   https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3488978062

August 9, 2021 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, Reference, spinbuster | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »