nuclear-news

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

Despite scientific objections, the European Commission sticks to its draft plan to include nuclear and gas in “taxonomy for sustainable finance”

 Brussels has stuck by a decision to classify nuclear power and some forms of natural gas as green energy, defying criticism from scientists and climate change experts over its landmark sustainable finance rules.

The European Commission on Wednesday published a largely unrevised final text of its The EU’s taxonomy is a sweeping classification system for industries that produce about 80 per cent of the bloc’s emissions to guide private capital into environmentally sustainable activities.But Brussels has come
under fire for bowing to pressure from pro-nuclear and pro-gas member states to include the two technologies under the green label in an initial draft first reported by the Financial Times.sustainable finance” which has come under fire from EU governments, environmental campaigners and the European Investment Bank for its acceptance of nuclear power and forms of carbon-emitting gas.

The EU’s taxonomy is a sweeping classification system for industries that produce about 80 per cent of the bloc’s emissions to guide private capital into environmentally sustainable activities.But Brussels has come under fire for bowing to pressure from pro-nuclear and pro-gas member states to include the two technologies under the green label in an initial draft first reported by the Financial Times.
  FT 2nd Feb 2022

https://www.ft.com/content/0acb5e0f-8322-413f-911d-fda09951ea99

 France24 2nd Feb 2022

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220202-eu-presses-on-with-green-label-for-gas-nuclear

 Independent 2nd Feb 2022

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-germany-brussels-european-commission-gas-b2006003.html

February 5, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

European Taxonomy – more like Fakeonomy – now including coal and nuclear

EU includes gas and nuclear in guidebook for ‘green’ investments, Commission’s move widely criticised as undermining efforts to keep global heating below 1.5Cm  Guardian 
Jennifer Rankin in Brussels, Thu 3 Feb 2022 The European Commission has been accused of undermining its climate goals after it defied critics by pushing ahead with plans to include gas and nuclear in an EU guidebook for “green” investments.

Gas and nuclear were deemed bridge technologies to meet the EU’s target of net zero emissions by 2050, in long-awaited proposals on the EU’s “taxonomy for environmentally sustainable economic activities”, which were published on Wednesday.

“The reason we are including gas and nuclear in the way we are doing it is because we firmly believe that this recognises the need for these energy sources in transition,” the EU commissioner for financial services, Mairead McGuinness, told reporters.

Critics said including gas and nuclear in a guide intended to prevent greenwashing jeopardised the EU’s climate goals and hopes of keeping global heating below 1.5C.

“The European Commission is significantly undermining the EU’s credibility as a climate actor,” Bas Eickhout, a Dutch Green MEP and vice-chair of the European parliament’s environment committee, said. “At the UN climate summit in Glasgow, small steps were taken towards phasing out fossil fuels. Yet, unfortunately, the commission is already turning back the clock and leaving the door open to the gas industry.”

Laurence Tubiana, the chief executive of the European Climate Foundation and an architect of the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement, said: “The EU taxonomy was envisioned as a vital tool to align financial flows with the Paris agreement. Instead, Europe is undermining its climate leadership and lowering standards in the EU and beyond. When a gold standard does emerge elsewhere, this taxonomy will be left behind.”

Since the proposals leaked on New Year’s Eve 2021 – fuelling bitter accusations of a lack of transparency – the commission has made minor tweaks that make it easier for gas projects to get in the green guidebook……

The taxonomy – intended to channel billions of private money into climate-friendly investments – is fast becoming one of the biggest controversies of Ursula von der Leyen’s tenure as European Commission president. Last month Greta Thunberg and climate activists slammed the plans as “fake climate action” that flout scientific advice.

In a further sign of anger, campaign group Avaaz staged a mock burial of the taxonomy on a roundabout outside the commission headquarters, with activists wearing face masks of Von der Leyen, Germany’s Olaf Scholz and France’s Emmanuel Macron. France pressured Von der Leyen to grant the stamp of approval for nuclear power, while Germany had lobbied for the inclusion of gas, although Scholz’s coalition government is split on the issue.

“Europe is witnessing our biggest setback yet in our moonshot mission,” said Patricia Martín Díaz of Avaaz. “Labelling fossil gas and nuclear as green is incompatible with the EU’s 2050 climate targets and our hope of keeping 1.5C alive.”……………

Other critics include an expert panel convened by the commission, which said the plans were “not in line” with the original regulation, agreed in July 2020. In its stinging rebuke, the EU platform on sustainable finance – a group that includes industry, NGO and finance experts from EU institutions – said they had doubts about the criteria for gas and nuclear, while “many are deeply concerned about the environmental impacts that may result”………..

The EU taxonomy became law in July 2020, but legislators left important details to be resolved through so-called delegated acts – secondary legislation meant for technical issues that is not subject to the same degree of ministerial and parliamentary oversight.

Critics have accused the commission of abusing the process, by smuggling in the controversial issues of nuclear and gas into the latest delegated act, rather than drafting a separate law.

Only a supermajority of 20 out of 27 EU member states, or a majority of the European parliament’s 705 MEPs can now defeat the plans during a scrutiny period of four to six months that began on Wednesday.

Commission officials played down the threat of a legal challenge from Austria and Luxembourg, describing it as “a very theoretical discussion”. Both countries oppose nuclear power, while Green ministers in the German coalition government have dismissed the plans as greenwashing.

Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands had urged the commission not to label gas as green, while Germany declared its opposition to nuclear…………

Lisa Fischer, who leads the E3G thinktank’s work on climate neutral energy systems, said gas and nuclear had no place in the taxonomy. “Gas investments are not only harmful to the climate they are also increasingly financially risky. Nuclear makes the EU’s energy transition more costly than it needs to be.”

In a sign of the intense arguments, McGuinness revealed that had been no unanimity among the commission’s top 27 officials; she said an “overwhelming majority” of EU commissioners had backed the plans.

“We were legally obliged to do this,” she said referring back to the initial July 2020 law. Opponents in national capitals, however, say the commission had no obligation to include gas or nuclear. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/02/eu-guidebook-taxonomy-green-investments-gas-nuclear-included

February 4, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE, politics international, secrets,lies and civil liberties, spinbuster | 1 Comment

Inclusion of nuclear and gas is ”attempted robbery”

Taxonomy: inclusion of nuclear and gas is “attempted robbery” – Greenpeace https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/46036/taxonomy-nuclear-gas-attempted-robbery/

Taxonomy: inclusion of nuclear and gas is “attempted robbery” – Greenpeace, Greenpeace European Unit 02/02/2022  Brussels, 2 February 2022 – The European Commission today officially presented a controversial plan to label fossil gas and nuclear energy as sustainable under the taxonomy regulation. The plan would incentivise potentially hundreds of billions of euro in private investments to flow away from clean energy like renewables and instead go to nuclear energy and fossil gas, accelerating the climate crisis.

Apart from producing dangerous and unmanageable radioactive waste, nuclear reactors take so long to build that they cannot come online quickly enough to contribute to reaching EU climate targets by 2030, which scientists say is necessary to prevent the worst effects of the climate crisis. Gas is also the single most polluting fuel in the EU, with soaring prices sparking a European energy crisis.

Greenpeace EU sustainable finance campaigner Ariadna Rodrigo said: “I’d like to report an attempted robbery, please. Someone is trying to take billions of euro away from renewables and sink them into technologies that either do nothing to fight the climate crisis, like nuclear, or which actively make the problem worse, like fossil gas. The suspect is at EU Commission HQ and has disguised herself as someone to be taken seriously on the climate and nature crisis.”

“This anti-science plan represents the biggest greenwashing exercise of all time. It makes a mockery of the EU’s claims to global leadership on climate and the environment. The inclusion of gas and nuclear in the taxonomy is increasingly difficult to explain as anything other than a giveaway to two desperate industries with powerful political friends,” added Rodrigo.

The Platform on Sustainable Finance, a body of over 50 experts from business, academia and civil society, which advises the European Commission on its green agenda, said in its official feedback to the plan that the provisions on nuclear energy, especially radioactive waste, violate a key principle of the taxonomy, which aims to ensure that any technologies included “do no significant harm” to the environment. The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, whose members represent more than €50 trillion in assets, has also said that the Commission’s proposals on gas would “channel capital towards activities not compatible with the EU’s commitment to climate neutrality by 2050.”

Environmental lawyers at NGO Client Earth have said that the inclusion in the taxonomy of fossil gas would be incompatible with several EU laws, including the 2021 EU Climate Law. Several governments and organisations are reportedly planning legal challenges to the inclusion of gas and nuclear in the taxonomy.

Next steps

The Commission’s plan is set to face an immediate backlash from MEPs, who have been cut out of the process and denied the chance to scrutinise this controversial plan until now.

Greenpeace is calling on MEPs to vote this proposal down. A majority of the Parliament, or 353 MEPs, is required to reject it. 

Greenpeace is also calling on all financial institutions in the EU not to categorise nuclear and gas investments as environmentally sustainable, and to be transparent and science-based about their energy and climate investment decisions.

Contacts:

Ariadna Rodrigo – Greenpeace EU sustainable finance campaigner: +32 (0)479 99 69 22, arodrigo@greenpeace.org 

February 4, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Increased risk of flooding due to population increase and global heating

Climate change and population growth could drive a 26% rise in US flood
risk by 2050 – disproportionately impacting black and low-income groups
– new research finds. The study, published in Nature Climate Change,
models property-level changes in flood risk across the US over the next
three decades.

It finds that in 2020, the US saw an “average annual
loss” of $32bn from flooding, but that cost could rise to $41bn by 2050.
The authors find that population growth will be the main driver of
increasing flood risk, causing 75% of the rise in “average annual
exposure” to flooding by 2050. The impacts of climate change –
including rising sea levels, intensifying hurricanes and changing rainfall
patterns – will account for 19% of the increased risk.

 Carbon Brief 31st Jan 2022

US flooding increase will ‘disproportionately’ impact black and low-income groups

February 3, 2022 Posted by | climate change, USA | Leave a comment

Small island communities – pioneers for sustainability and climate action

Small island communities have often been pioneers for sustainability and
climate action. Are they a snapshot of a greener future, or a distraction
from bigger problems elsewhere?

By 2030, Rathlin wants to be acarbon-neutral island, following in the footsteps of dozens of small
islands around the world taking the fight against climate change into their
own hands by embracing renewable energy, electric vehicles and
sustainability.

To name a few, there’s the Danish island of Samsø, which
relies on wind energy and other renewables for power and heat. Or Tilos in
Greece, which was the first island in the country to become energy
self-sufficient.

Or Jeju, the South Korean holiday island which, like
Rathlin, aims to be carbon neutral by the end of the decade. Some say these
green islands or “eco-islands” are shining examples.

They demonstrate the
power of small communities and act as beacons lighting the way towards a
world less dependent on fossil fuels. But others argue that islands of a
couple of hundred or a few thousand inhabitants are mere drops in the ocean
when rapid, global change is required. Worse, these so-called good examples
might end up distracting mainlanders from their own responsibilities
regarding climate change. Are eco-islands just a waste of time?

 BBC 1st Feb 2022

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220131-the-worlds-tiny-islands-inspiring-green-action

February 3, 2022 Posted by | climate change, OCEANIA | Leave a comment

Nuclear not competitive’ and too late for energy transition: Enel Green Power CEO.

Nuclear not competitive’ and too late for energy transition: Enel Green Power CEO, Italian renewables giant ‘obviously’ won’t invest in nuclear due to long construction times and high costs, Salvatore Bernabei says  https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/nuclear-not-competitive-and-too-late-for-energy-transition-enel-green-power-ceo/2-1-1155407 By Bernd Radowitz 26 Jan 22,

Enel Green Power has no intention to invest in nuclear power despite the European Commission’s plan to label the technology as sustainable, the Italian renewables supermajor’s chief executive Salvatore Bernabei said.

Construction times of conventional nuclear power plants are far too long in relation to the need to get the energy transition done within the next 20 to 30 years, the CEO explained.

“If you think about the current technology and the current timing of development and construction of nuclear plants, it is much bigger than 10 years (from the moment) you take the initial investment decision,” Bernabei said at a press briefing.

You have the permitting, then you have the construction,” he said, adding that all projects currently being built have exceeded their planned construction time, and their completion takes “two to three times more than initially expected.”

“They are (also) out of budget. So, saying that nuclear could help in the transition with the current technology – I leave you to (make) the conclusion.”

His comments came after the EU Commission had proposed to include nuclear power and fossil gas under certain circumstances in its taxonomy that labels energy projects as sustainable and thus facilitates financing. The taxonomy proposal enjoys the backing by France, Finland and several Eastern European EU states that want to build or expand atomic power, but the inclusion of nuclear has been strongly opposed by Germany, Austria, Spain and Luxembourg.

Despite its stated wish to build new nuclear reactors and revamp existing ones to extend their operational life, France has suffered severe setbacks during the construction of the Flamanville 3 reactor, one of the few nuclear plants being built in Europe. The country this winter also had to switch off a series of atomic power stations, forcing it to import large volumes of electricity from neighbouring countries.

French state-owned utility EDF earlier this month has said the plant of the novel European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) type at Flamanville will cost another €300m more than forecast and fuel loading is being pushed back by up to six month, the Reuters news agency had reported. The 1.65GW reactor according to French media will then have cost French taxpayers a record €19.1bn ($21.5bn) instead of the €3.4bn originally budgeted, and have taken 15 years to build, ten years longer than originally planned.

Similar construction time and cost overruns have been experienced in Finland, where operator Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) has recently started to commission the Olkiluoto 3 reactor, also an EPR reactor.

Germany’s government last weekend issued a statement rejecting the inclusion of nuclear power into the EU’s taxonomy.

“It is risky and expensive. New reactor concepts such as mini-reactors also entail similar problems and cannot be classified as sustainable,” economics and climate minister Robert Habeck and environment minister Steffi Lemke said in a joint reaction.

It is clear to everyone that the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of nuclear is much bigger than €100 per megawatt hour, Bernabei agreed.

Small nuclear reactors (SMRs), which by some investors such as Bill Gates are touted to be a quick solution helping the energy transition, and supposedly are safer, may not be such a quick fix either, the EGP CEO pointed out.

“Then you talk of the next generation (of nuclear power). But in the next generation, you have this word ‘next’, (which) has to be defined yet. We are speaking about something that could be ready in 2040 – perhaps,” Bernabei said.

The first SMR reactor is slated to be built in China by 2026, “and they are the first mover,” the CEO added.

“So, whatever the taxonomy would say, the question will be ‘is there anyone available to invest in a technology that would need more than 10 years to become a reality? And perhaps when it becomes reality, the market has completely changed its dynamic with a cost that today is not competitive.”

“As Enel we don’t intend to invest in nuclear obviously.”

Italy after a referendum following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster had switched off nuclear power in the by 1990, but the far right Lega party of Matteo Salvini lobbies for it renaissance.

January 27, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, climate change, Italy | Leave a comment

Former nuclear regulators say that nuclear power is not a feasible option for tackling the climate crisis.

Nuclear energy not feasible way to tackle climate crisis, former regulators say  https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/nuclear-energy-climate-crisis-experts-b2001076.html

It would be unlikely to make relevant contribution quickly enough, experts say, Zoe Tidman, 26 Jan 22, Nuclear energy is not part of any feasible strategy that could be used to tackle climate change, former top officials from national regulators have said

The experts said it was too costly, risky and unlikely to have a significant impact quickly enough.

The comments were made in a joint statement by Dr Gregory Jaczko, Professor Wolfgang Renneberg, Dr Bernard Laponche and Dr Paul Dorfman, who have been involved in government nuclear regulation and radiation protection levels in the US, Germany, France and the UK respectively.

The former top officials said they felt a “collective responsibility” to comment on whether nuclear energy could play a significant role in trying to tackle the climate crisis.

January 27, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

“Ireland must take firm stance against greenwashing of EU Taxonomy” – Member of European Parliament

“Ireland must take firm stance against greenwashing of EU Taxonomy” –
Chris MacManus MEP. “The inclusion of gas and nuclear energy in the
Sustainable Finance Taxonomy would amount to greenwashing and must be
firmly opposed by the Irish government and MEPs,” said Chris MacManus,
MEP for the Midlands Northwest. “There is a very narrow political window
in which to reject this greenwashing attempt, and Ireland needs to be clear
and vocal in its opposition to the Commission’s proposal.”

 Sinn Fein 25th Jan 2022

https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/62904

January 27, 2022 Posted by | climate change, Ireland | Leave a comment

The threat of nuclear winter hangs over our warming planet

The threat of nuclear winter hangs over our warming planet, Pearls and Irritations By Andrew GliksonJan 26, 2022  Even a limited nuclear war would inject enough smoke and dust into the atmosphere to threaten the survival of our species.

The impact of the Cretaceous-Paleocene asteroid 66 million years ago released enough dust and debris to cloud large parts of the planet, causing the mass extinction of some 80 per cent of animal species. When Turco et al. (1983) and Carl Sagan (1983) warned the world about the climatic effects of a nuclear war, they pointed out that the amount of carbon stored in a large city was sufficient to release enough aerosols, smoke, soot and dust to block sunlight over large regions, leading to a widespread failure of crops and extensive starvation.

The current nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia could potentially inject 150 teragrams of soot from fires ignited by nuclear explosions into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (Coupe et al., 2019), lasting for a period of 10 years or longer, followed by a period of intense radioactive radiation over large areas.

Even a “limited” nuclear war, such as between India and Pakistan, would release enough aerosols to affect large regions, killing millions or billions through starvation. As stated by Robock et al. (2007):

“The casualties from the direct effects of blast, radioactivity, and fires resulting from the massive use of nuclear weapons by the superpowers would be so catastrophic … the ensuing nuclear winter would produce famine for billions of people far from the target zones.”

With the global arsenal of nuclear warheads at around 13,000 – 90 per cent of which are held by Russia and the US – a regional conflict such as in Ukraine or Taiwan would threaten to spill worldwide. As the clock of atomic scientists is set at 100 seconds to doomsday, the rising probability of an intended or inadvertent nuclear war, against the background of rising global warming, indicates an hour of truth for our species – a choice between the defence of life on earth and global suicide……………………. https://johnmenadue.com/the-threat-of-nuclear-winter-hangs-over-our-warming-planet/

January 27, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, climate change, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Debate flares in Amiens over the attempt to include nuclear in the ”green taxonomy”


Hours before the window for lodging objections closes, EU environment and
energy ministers meeting in France Friday differed sharply on a European
Commission provision that would classify nuclear and natural gas energy as
“sustainable”.

The controversy pits countries led by France — where
nuclear generates a world-leading 70 percent of electricity — against
Germany, Austria and others in the 27-nation bloc.

Debate over the Commission’s so-called “taxonomy” is not on the agenda of the informal,
three-day talks in Amiens, but flared nonetheless. In late December the
European Commission unveiled a classification labelling investment in
nuclear gas-based energy as sustainable, in order to favour sectors that
reduce the greenhouse gas emissions driving global warming.

 Fin24 22nd Jan 2022

 https://www.news24.com/fin24/economy/eu-nations-quarrel-over-whether-nuclear-gas-are-green-20220122

January 25, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

How France greenwashes nuclear weapons

President Macron has announced investment of one billion euros in research and construction of small modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs are small nuclear reactors that are to be used primarily for submarine propulsion and thus for military purposes in distant theatres of war

Behind the planned modernisation of French nuclear power, allegedly to ensure cheaper electricity, nestles the agenda of its nuclear weapons programme. For years now, the state has imposed the exorbitant costs of its civilian-military nuclear industry on the French public.


France plans to modernise its nuclear power – allegedly to insure cheaper and greener electricity. Yet behind it nestles a nuclear weapons agenda   https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/foreign-and-security-policy/how-france-greenwashes-nuclear-weapons-5668/ 23 Jan 22,

At the turn of the year, France assumed the presidency of the Council of the European Union. And last week, the EU defence ministers met informally to talk about the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Among other issues, they discussed nuclear security and nuclear deterrence strategies.

In recent years, the French president has been a strong advocate of nuclear power. Historically, France’s independent development of nuclear technology for atomic weapons has been an important source of national pride. Since the 1990s, however, nuclear power has been declining as a consequence of the Chernobyl disaster. Annual reports by Mycle Schneider, an international consultant on energy and nuclear policy, show that this is a part of a global trend. Nevertheless, France continues to be a tireless advocate of this technology.

Nuclear answers for green energy and weapons

On 1 January 2022, a draft regulation of the European Commission classified the investment in nuclear energy and natural gas as sustainable. This concerns billions of euros in financial support in the so-called EU Taxonomy. Emmanuel Macron was keen to acquire a ‘Green Label’ for nuclear energy. France’s real interests concerning nuclear energy emerged clearly in a speech Macron delivered on a visit to Framatome’s Le Creusot facility in 2020: ‘Without civilian nuclear energy there is no military use of this technology – and without military use there is no civilian nuclear energy’. In a nutshell, this means that without a cutting-edge nuclear industry France cannot continue to expand and modernise its nuclear weapons arsenal. This remains true for all nuclear weapons states.

At present, these states are upgrading their arsenals. Russia and the United States are procuring new delivery systems – such as hypersonic missiles – that will be able to deliver their nuclear bombs much more quickly and accurately, leaving the enemy with no time to defend themselves. Thus, a new nuclear arms race has begun.

The US think tank Atlantic Council is quite open about how crucial it regards civilian use of nuclear power to be for national security policy: the civilian US nuclear industry is a U.S. strategic asset of vital importance for US national security. Similar formulations can be found in the speeches of other presidents of nuclear weapons states. Its civilian nuclear complex costs the United States at least USD 42.4bn a year. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) claims that all nuclear weapons states together invest over USD 100bn a year in their nuclear weapons arsenals.

France, too, wants to join in the ongoing technological development in other nuclear weapons states for quite some time. President Macron has announced investment of one billion euros in research and construction of small modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs are small nuclear reactors that are to be used primarily for submarine propulsion and thus for military purposes in distant theatres of war. The new Hunter class submarines underline France’s great-power ambitions. This needs to be understood against the background of the collapsed submarine deal with Australia. Last year Australia announced that it was cancelling its contract to buy French diesel submarines in favour of US and UK nuclear technology.

Flexible submarine-based nuclear weapons systems have major strategic importance for all nuclear weapons states. They have the capability of going for up to three months without surfacing. They can cover great distances at high speeds undetected and surface almost wherever they want around the globe. They are capable of launching up to 20 missiles, each with a dozen individual guided warheads. All this plays a key role in the nuclear weapons doctrine of the five ‘official’ nuclear weapons states, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China. At the same time, the possession of this technology underpins these countries’ great-power status. France, like the other nuclear weapons states, is keen to consolidate its status.

Exposing the French agenda

The first meeting of EU defence ministers under the French Council Presidency was held on 12–13 January 2022 in Brest. This is where France’s sea-based nuclear weapons are stationed, making this a clear demonstration of its military power. As early as his 2020 speech in Le Creusot, the French President confirmed his country’s military ambitions: ‘the nuclear industry will remain the cornerstone of our strategic autonomy. It affects every aspect of deterrence, powering our nuclear submarines, submarines for launching ballistic missiles, and powering our nuclear aircraft carriers.’

Nuclear power and nuclear sharing are controversial in the European Union. Austria and Luxembourg have sharply criticised the EU Taxonomy. At the same time, there has been a multilateral UN treaty banning weapons of mass destruction since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons of 22 January 2021.

Behind the planned modernisation of French nuclear power, allegedly to ensure cheaper electricity, nestles the agenda of its nuclear weapons programme. For years now, the state has imposed the exorbitant costs of its civilian-military nuclear industry on the French public. The costs of building the pressurised water reactor in Flamanville, for example, ran to €19.4bn. Ultimately, electricity customers and investors subsidise military applications with ‘climate-saving nuclear power’.

In any case, as France takes over the EU Council Presidency it is now perfectly placed to promote the civilian-military use of nuclear energy and a European security and defence strategy based on the doctrine of nuclear deterrence.

January 24, 2022 Posted by | climate change, France, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Germany formally opposes inclusion of nuclear energy in EU’s ”sustainable” taxonomy

Germany cries foul over nuclear energy in EU’s green rule book, Daily Sabah, BY REUTERS, BERLIN JAN 23, 2022 German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party coalition government has raised objections to a European Union draft plan to label nuclear power plants as a sustainable energy source in a formal letter to Brussels, ministers said on Saturday.

The EU taxonomy aims to set a gold standard for green investments, helping climate-friendly projects to pull in private capital and stamping out “greenwashing,” where investors and companies overstate their eco-credentials.

“As the federal government, we have once again clearly expressed our rejection of the inclusion of nuclear energy. It is risky and expensive,” Vice Chancellor and Economy Minister Robert Habeck said in a joint statement with Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, both senior members of the Greens party.

In its letter to Brussels, published by the Economy Ministry on its webpage, the German government also pointed to the lack of any safety requirements regarding nuclear power plants.

“Serious accidents with large, cross-border and long-term hazards to humans and the environment cannot be excluded,” Berlin said in its letter, adding that the question of where to store radioactive waste in the long term was still unanswered.

Habeck and Lemke said that Berlin should reject the plan in their opinion if the European Commission disregarded Germany’s objections and left the draft plan unchanged.

However, German government sources told Reuters earlier this month that coalition parties wanted to avoid escalating the EU dispute and agreed in coalition talks behind closed doors to abstain in any upcoming vote.

Long delayed

The EU rules have been long delayed, with countries split over whether nuclear energy and natural gas deserve a green badge. Austria has already said it would take legal action if the European Commission proceeds with its draft plan to label both as sustainable investments……………………….. 

The commission hopes to adopt a final draft by the end of the month.  https://www.dailysabah.com/business/energy/germany-cries-foul-over-nuclear-energy-in-eus-green-rule-book

January 24, 2022 Posted by | climate change, Germany, incidents | Leave a comment

Officials at San Onofre conspicuously silent on the risks of tsunami waves to nuclear waste storage.

The tsunami advisory that woke up the West Coast Jan. 15 should serve as a wake-up call on flooding dangers at the nuclear waste storage facility in San Onofre. The facility is 100 feet from the beach.

During high tides, waves crash into an aging bulkhead that separates the sea from the storage
vault — a kind of crypt that holds 73 thin-walled, metal canisters jam-packed with 3.6 million pounds of deadly, radioactive waste.

According to Southern California Edison, the sprawling, concrete vault will flood from a storm at high tide. If the ocean were to swamp the so-called Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, we could have an unsurpassed disaster on our hands, an uncontrolled criticality, one that has never occurred in the U.S. commercial power industry.

The undersea volcanic eruption this month near Tonga sent waves across the Pacific. Officials in
Hawaii reported tsunami wave heights of nearly 3 feet. At San Diego Harbor, officials measured more than a half-foot of sea level rise. Meanwhile, officials from shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station remained conspicuously silent.

 Times of San Diego 20th Jan 2022

Opinion: California Tsunami Alert Was Wake-Up Call on San Onofre Flood Risk

January 24, 2022 Posted by | climate change, safety, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy too costly for humans — and the planet 

But this [France’s small nuclear reactor] plan has a whole range of shortcomings, not least because reaching the same capacity as a single large nuclear reactor requires a great deal of these small reactors.

This high number will increase the risk of a nuclear accident many time over,” the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) recently warned

“Without civilian nuclear power, there is no military nuclear power, and without military nuclear power, there is no civilian nuclear power,” Macron said.

Nuclear energy too costly for humans — and the planet   https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-nuclear-energy-too-costly-for-humans-and-the-planet/a-60390384 21 Jan 22

Nuclear power will soon be classified as environmentally friendly under the new EU taxonomy. But nothing about it is green or safe, says DW’s Jeannette Cwienk.

I can still clearly recall that spring afternoon in late April 1986. I had been out playing in the woods and building a fort with some friends, when a rain shower forced us back home. It was a fun, carefree day.

We had no idea that just hours earlier, reactor number 4 at the Chernobyl power plant near the Ukrainian city of Pripyat had exploded.

When the news came out days later, the Chernobyl catastrophe and fears of a radiation-filled future quickly came to define my younger years.

Such memories, however, are not the only reason for my concern about the European Commission’s proposal to include nuclear energy and natural gas as environmentally-friendly technology in the EU taxonomy.

Doing so would see nuclear energy classified as sustainable, and recommend it as an option for investors — making a mockery of environmental efforts.

Who will pay for nuclear accidents?

The EU Commission is completely ignoring the costs of nuclear energy. Quite apart from the funds required to build new nuclear power plants, even smaller ones, there is the far more important and apparently overlooked question of who would foot the bill in the event of an accident.

.

In Germany alone, the federal costs attached to the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe have been estimated at around €1 billion ($1.1 billion). Worldwide, the immediate economic ramifications of Chernobyl are estimated to have been more than €200 billion — and that doesn’t include the cost of widespread related illness. 

Health costs were also not included in the €177-billion bill linked to the consequences of the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, as estimated by the Japanese government in 2017.

Most of these costs have since been covered by Japanese taxpayers, because the operating company, TEPCO, was de facto nationalized after the disaster to avoid insolvency.

Taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill

And this brings us to the heart of the problem: in Europe, the amounts that nuclear operators are required to set aside in case they’re found liable for a nuclear accident are laughably small. In the Czech Republic, nuclear power plant operators are required to have €74 million on hand in case of an accident; in Hungary, the figure is €127 million.

Even in France, the driving force for the planned “greening” of European nuclear energy and the largest consumer of nuclear energy worldwide — it makes up around 70% of its energy supply — operators are only required to set aside €700 million in case of an accident. A large nuclear accident in Europe could easily cost between €100 and 430 billion. And should that happen, the affected countries — along with their taxpayers — will be forced to foot the bill.

This situation has been met with criticism by Germany’s new finance minister and the leader of the neoliberal Free Democrat Party, Christian Lindner, who recently expressed skepticism about the place of nuclear energy in the new EU taxonomy.

“An energy source that can only be mainstream if the state is prepared to accept liability — that’s a sign from the market that it can’t be a sustainable energy source,” he said.

On Friday, the German government is likely to vote against the EU Commission’s plans — and rightly so. Austria and Luxembourg, on the other hand, have gone a courageous step further and have announced plans to take Brussels to court if the disputed sustainability plans go ahead.

Small modular reactors also a risk

In France, meanwhile, President Emmanuel Macron likes to describe nuclear power as a “stroke of luck” for climate protection. The fact that 10 of the country’s reactors are currently offline — three from the latest generation due to safety concerns — are apparently not an issue for the French government, which has been trying to allay the fears of a nuclear accident with new small modular reactors (SMR). These smaller power stations are only around one 10th of the size of a conventional nuclear site — and therefore are considered less dangerous, in the event of an accident.

But this plan has a whole range of shortcomings, not least because reaching the same capacity as a single large nuclear reactor requires a great deal of these small reactors.

“This high number will increase the risk of a nuclear accident many time over,” the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) recently warned.

Is it really about climate protection?

BASE has also been critical of a report by the EU’s Joint Research Center, which the EU Commission has used to make its assessment about the environmental friendliness of civil nuclear power.

The EU report only partially considers the risks of nuclear energy use for humans and the environment, as well as for future generations, and some of the principles of scientific work are not correctly taken into account. According to BASE, the report cannot be relied on to comprehensively assess the sustainability of nuclear energy use.

This has raised doubts over the claim that Brussels wants to include nuclear power in the new EU taxonomy primarily for climate protection reasons. Instead, the decision seems to be down to political pressure, especially from Paris.

As a global nuclear power, France wants to hold on to its nuclear plants at all costs, as Macron clearly stated in December.

“Without civilian nuclear power, there is no military nuclear power, and without military nuclear power, there is no civilian nuclear power,” he said.

January 22, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

European States opposing inclusion of nuclear in ‘green’ taxonomy warn on diverting investement from genuinely clean technologies.

Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg and Spain continue to reject natural gas and
nuclear in the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy, their energy and
climate ministers have said in response to a recent draft proposal.

The European Commission’s proposed conditions under which investments in
natural gas-fired and nuclear power plants would be deemed “green” in a
draft updated taxonomy sent “the wrong signals to financial markets and
seriously risks being rejected by investors,” the ministers said late on
Thursday.

The taxonomy aims to help investors identify suitable projects
that support the EU’s climate goals. It does not require investments in
projects that meet the criteria nor prohibit investments in projects that
do not. The ministers argued, however, that the long lifetimes of natural
gas and nuclear plants meant that including them in the taxonomy could lock
in their use for many decades and divert investments away from renewables.

 Montel 21st Jan 2022

https://www.montelnews.com/news/1294402/four-eu-nations-reject-gas-nuclear-in-green-taxonomy

January 22, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »