Germany, France, Italy, conserve energy, but the UK government rejects energy conservation
In Germany, shops must keep their doors closed to avoid heat escaping on
cold days, illuminated advertising boards have to be switched off by 10pm,
and in some public swimming pools only cold showers are available.
In France, there will be no “temeparture police”, energy transition
minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher has promised, but the country’s
“sobriety” energy-savings push asks that homes and offices are not
heated above 19 degrees centigrade. Commuters are also being asked to
car-share, and mountain resorts have pledged to reduce the speed of ski
lifts at off-peak times.
Italy has launched what has been dubbed
“Operation Thermostat” – limits to the temperature that public
buildings can set the air conditioning at in the summer and the heating
during winter. People have also been encouraged to limit the duration of
showers, the time ovens are switched on, and to use the dishwasher and
washing machine only when fully loaded.
In Britain, it is sometimes easy to
forget that there is an energy crisis. As the nation grapples with yet
another implausible leap in household bills, the festive lights started
going up on London’s Oxford Street at the end of September – almost three
months before Christmas Day. That the lights have been replaced by LED
versions this year is perhaps somewhat overshadowed by the fact that there
will still be 300,000 individual bulbs on display.
As one shopper reportedly remarked: “Lights already? We don’t even know if we’ll be able
to turn ours on this Christmas.” At the heart of this strange disconnect
is the Government’s ongoing refusal to even talk about the concept of
conserving energy, never mind encourage people to turn down the thermostat.
Not even a warning of winter power cuts from the National Grid is enough to
convince the Cabinet of the merits of promoting energy conservation.
Telegraph 14th Oct 2022
France’s national embarrassment: half of its nuclear reactors to remain out of action for months
France’s nuclear reactors will not work as normal any time soon. The
trouble will persist well into next year. when edf, the French energy giant,
warned in May that nuclear-electricity production this year would be lower
than previously forecast because half its reactors were out of action, the
timing could not have been worse.
Thanks to its nuclear industry, France is
usually Europe’s biggest net exporter of electricity. The closures turned
the country into a net power importer for the first time, just as the
continent faced an energy crunch. When in September edf then announced that
even by 2024 output would still be well below normal levels, the problem
became a national embarrassment.
France’s current nuclear troubles are
partly due to routine maintenance of the country’s 56 reactors, half of
which are about 40 years old. Each ageing reactor needs periodically to be
shut down, on a rotating basis, for inspection. During the pandemic,
scheduled maintenance was interrupted by lockdowns. The real crunch,
though, came after corrosion issues were detected in late 2021 at one
pressurised-water reactor. By this September no fewer than 25 reactors were
out of action: ten for routine maintenance, the rest for corrosion analysis
or repairs.
Economist 13th Oct 2022
Renewables need minerals. Can their pollution and public health challenges be overcome?
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2022/10/09/renewables-need-minerals/ By Linda Pentz Gunter, by beyondnuclearinternational,
We are now both on the path to — and amidst the crisis of — resolving our past greed and irresponsibility in the energy and transport sector. But few, if any, human industries are without a carbon footprint. This has made the climb out of our carbon-intensive paradigm all the harder.
Consequently, our first imperative — in order to do as little current or future environmental harm as possible — is to focus on solutions that have the lowest carbon footprint and environmental and human impact. This puts conservation at the pinnacle of our priorities, followed by energy efficiency.
Particularly in developed countries — where we bear almost the entire responsibility for the mess we have made of our planet — we can, and must, consume less, become more energy efficient, live in smaller homes, use public transport routinely, walk and bicycle more and drive and fly less.
Using fossil fuels has to stop. Completely. And ideally now, but, realistically, as soon as possible. Replacement power will still be needed. But nuclear power, which creates long-lived lethal radioactive waste from the beginning to the end of its fuel cycle, and, as a large thermo-electric generator, relies on huge quantities of what will become increasingly scarce water supplies, is not the substitute for fossil fuels. Nuclear power cannot be an environmentally clean and just energy solution. And it has no answers for the transport sector, either.
Yet, as we decry the extraction of uranium — and all its attendant poisoning of the environment and ourselves along with human rights violations — we are met with the legitimate argument that increasing the use of renewables (and electric cars) in order to decarbonize, brings with it the same extractive environmental impacts.
But are they really the same? If we dig deeper, to use an unwelcome metaphor, we find parallels but not necessarily equity between the impacts of renewables and nuclear. This does not excuse or justify worker abuse, human rights violations or extractive contamination in any sector. But it’s an important distinction.
First and foremost, we must look to carbon emissions. It makes sense, even if all the other downsides were equal — which they clearly are not — to at least focus on the lowest carbon emitters. And those are unquestionably renewables. Therefore, our responsibility now is to put things right in the renewable energy industry, even as we must point out, criticize and urge change in those areas that need improvement, including recycling, sustainable sourcing and human rights.
A second priority, is the ability and willingness of industries to make those improvements.
We have seen how the wind industry has worked to minimize its impacts on migratory birds. It’s no coincidence that some of the biggest bird conservation groups, including BirdLife International, the American Bird Conservancy and the Audubon Society, cautiously support the development of wind power while scrupulously watchdogging its progress.
The renewable energy and electric vehicle industries recognize the fact that they rely on mineral extraction and, as such, must try to mitigate or avoid negative environmental, social and human rights impacts. Unlike the nuclear industry — which has been guilty of environmental and human rights abuses since it began — the renewable energy industry is working to resolve these significant drawbacks.
As Justine Calma wrote in The Verge at the end of last year: “There are ways to get the minerals the clean energy revolution needs while minimizing the impact on people and the planet. Startups are figuring out how to get better at recycling lithium batteries.” Mining companies are also looking to power their extraction using renewables rather than fossil fuels.
The World Bank program — The Climate-Smart Mining Initiative — aims to help “resource-rich developing countries benefit from the increasing demand for minerals and metals, while ensuring the mining sector is managed in a way that minimizes the environmental and climate footprint as it works to decarbonize”.
The nuclear industry, by contrast, has made no such effort to mitigate its environmental impact, and cannot do so, because splitting the atom to boil water is inherently dangerous and polluting. Worse, the industry actively pushes back against — or outright rejects — mitigation efforts because it would cost the already financially struggling nuclear sector money it can’t afford to expend if it is to stay in business.
The end product of nuclear power is long-lived highly radioactive waste with no long-term, safe, permanent management solution. While the renewable energy sector is looking into the recycling of batteries, there is no recycling of nuclear waste. Reprocessing — often misleadingly called “recycling” — does no such thing.
In separating out the uranium and plutonium from irradiated reactor fuel, reprocessing produces even higher volumes of largely “low” and “intermediate”-level radioactive wastes, discharged into the air and sea or stored indefinitely.
The mining of uranium for use in nuclear power leaves behind radioactive waste and heavy metals that persistently contaminate the local environments, harming the health and safety of those communities and that of their land and water resources.
Nevertheless, there is no getting around the reality that the renewable industry, too, requires mining of minerals and rare earth metals, and that recycling, while beneficial, is not always done sustainably.
These hurdles are laid out in detail in a useful report prepared for Earthworks by the Institute for Sustainable Futures — Responsible minerals sourcing for renewable energy (Dominish, E., Florin, N. and Teske, S., 2019, Responsible Minerals Sourcing for Renewable Energy. Report prepared for Earthworks by the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney.)
The report emphasizes that “recycling and responsible sourcing are fundamental to improving the sustainability of the renewable energy transition”.
However, it points out that while “the renewable energy and battery industries have made significant improvements to the efficiency of technologies, to improve performance, minimize demand for materials and reduce production costs,” attention to stewardship and human rights abuses has been less promising. “The industry experts interviewed noted that reducing the environmental and social impacts of supply is not a major focus of the renewable energy industry.”
Inevitably, many of the resources for the renewable energy industry (along with electric vehicles, not discussed here as these are outside our energy focus), are to be found in troubled parts of the world — most notably DR Congo. In turn, the manufacturing of those minerals into metals is largely carried out in China, where human rights are suppressed.
The impacts of mining to supply the renewable energy industry invariably result in “pollution and heavy metal contamination of water and agricultural soils, and health impacts on workers and surrounding communities”.
The wind energy industry emerges as the least offender, according to the report. “Material use for wind turbines is already very efficient. Recycling of bulk materials (steel, aluminium, copper) used in wind turbines is well established with high recycling rates.”
The report offers some glimmers of hope, noting that increased use of renewables means a reduction in coal mining, “which is responsible for the greatest number of fatalities, health and environmental issues.”
But we are undoubtedly now in the land of Faustian bargains. We have left it too late to make choices that are problem-free. Renewables, therefore, must be measured up against the alternatives and nuclear power isn’t one of them. Aside from the carbon footprint and human rights violations of nuclear power, and its high costs and long construction times, we must also factor in the lethal waste; the daily radioactive releases harming primarily children; the outcome of a catastrophic accident; and the inextricable link to nuclear weapons development, to name a few.
We must learn to live more simply; smaller. More quietly. Tread lightly. And yes, we must transition to renewables, energy efficiency and conservation, not tomorrow, not gradually, but immediately. Can we do it without leaving yet another mess? Without further abuses?
As the ISF study concludes, not yet, but we are getting there. “There are a large number of responsible sourcing initiatives that promote environmental stewardship and the respect of human rights in the supply chain, most of which are voluntary and industry-led,” the authors wrote. “If these initiatives are harmonized and widely adopted, it may lead to more responsible supply chains.”
Until then, renewables are our least worst power option, and, out of time as we are, it’s a choice we have brought upon ourselves.
Liz Truss blocks a plan for UK citizens to reduce their energy use
How Liz Truss blocked Jacob Rees-Mogg’s energy-saving public information campaign.
Liz Truss is reported to have blocked the launch of a publicminformation campaign aimed at conserving energy, despite warnings that blackouts could be imposed in the UK if gas imports fall short this winter.
Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg is understood to have backed a £15m “light touch” initiative, according to The Times, encouraging households to reduce their use of gas and electricity by taking a series of simple measures. However, Ms Truss is said to be “ideologically opposed” to such an approach as it could be too interventionist.
iNews 7th Oct 2022
https://inews.co.uk/news/liz-truss-jacob-rees-mogg-energy-saving-campaign-1899019
As France’s nuclear power production is failing, the government aims to cut the nation’s electricity consumption
France launched a national energy savings plan on Thursday, banking on a
push to turn off lights and lower thermostats to avoid power and gas cuts
over the winter. Although the country is less dependent on Russian gas than
eastern neighbours like Germany, French nuclear power production has
slumped as the sector struggles to bring more of its aging reactors online
out of forced maintenance. The government has set a target of cutting
France’s energy consumption 10% by 2024 from 2019 levels, a first step in a
longer-term plan to become carbon neutral by reducing energy use 40% by
2050.
Reuters 6th Oct 2022
UK government sees energy conservation measures as making Britain a ‘nanny state’
Liz Truss blocks energy saving campaign ‘on ideological grounds’.
Minister says government views public information campaign as ‘nanny
state’. Liz Truss has blocked plans for a public information campaign
asking people to save energy over the winter, reportedly because she is
“ideologically opposed” to the idea.
Ministers on Friday morning claimed
the idea was “nanny state” and confirmed that they would not be urging
people to keep an eye on their usage despite warnings from National Grid of
possibly rolling blackouts. Business secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg is said to
have been keen on a £15 million campaign as a relatively cost-effective
way of reducing the UK’s energy usage at a time of surging prices and
scarcity.
Independent 7th Oct 2022
A Nebraska county of only 625 people contained nearly 100 deep underground nuclear missiles, so the US Air Force halted a green-power project that would have revitalized its economy
MSN lvaranasi@insider.com (Lakshmi Varanasi) 22 Sept 22,
- There are hundreds of underground nuclear missiles across Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Montana.
- The US Air Force says wind turbines can’t be constructed within a 2-mile radius of these missiles.
- Due to underground missiles, a wind turbine project in Banner County, Nebraska, was limited in scope.
The Democrats’ new climate and tax bill will invest billions in clean energy. Here are 21 high-paying green careers for people who want to save the planet. (Business Insider)
- There are many occupations out there that help the environment, such as wind turbine service technician.
- The Inflation Reduction Act could mean more clean energy jobs created.
- Here are the 21 fastest-growing green jobs that also have an annual pay greater than the overall median pay.
Saving the earth and having a lucrative career aren’t always mutually exclusive, and the Democrats’ big climate and tax bill that just passed could mean even more investment in green jobs.
The Inflation Reduction Act could mean many more workers will be needed to fill various clean energy and other jobs in the coming years. The bill also says it will cut carbon emissions by about 40% by 2030……………………………… (Read the original article on Business Insider)
In Nebraska’s Banner County, the remains of Cold War America are buried right below the surface.
During the 1960s, when the US was locked in a nuclear stalemate with the then-Soviet Union, it began planting hundreds of nuclear missiles across rural swaths of the country like Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota and Montana in case it needed to shoot them into the enemy camp at a given moment.
Now, those missiles are preventing the region from harnessing its most valuable resource: strong, gusty winds.
The Flat Water Free Press, an independent news outlet in Nebraska, reported last week that in 2019, the US Air Force began to thwart a wind turbine project in the state’s southwest Banner County.
Two renewable energy companies, Invenergy and Orion Renewable Energy Group, had singled out Banner for its “world class winds,” the Flat Water Free Press reported. They were ready to construct a combined 300 turbines across the region.
Each turbine would have brought in an additional $15,000 in annual income to the landowner whose property it would be built on. The capital from the turbines would have flushed into Banner’s school system and revitalized the 625-person county.
But the Air Force contended that the turbines would pose a “significant safety hazard” to pilots — especially during storms or blizzards. The Air Force decided that the turbines needed to be constructed 2.3 miles away from each other to ensure that pilots had enough space to land without potentially digging their wheels into a missile. Until then, a quarter mile between each turbine was had been sufficient.
“The new guidelines, explained to residents earlier this spring, significantly cut the number of possible turbines that could be constructed.”
Banner’s residents have been left frustrated and disillusioned by the Air Force’s new guidelines. “This resource is just there, ready to be used,” one Banner landowner said. “”How do we walk away from that?” Read the full story by The Flat Water Free Press here. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-nebraska-county-of-only-625-people-contained-nearly-100-deep-underground-nuclear-missiles-so-the-us-air-force-halted-a-green-power-project-that-would-have-revitalized-its-economy/ar-AA126fRl?li=BBnbcA1
It was set to be Nebraska’s largest wind project. Then the military stepped in.
Flatwater Free Press. By Natalia Alamdari, 16 Sept 22,
“…………………….. With about 150,000 acres leased by energy companies, this county of just 625 people stood poised to become home to as many as 300 wind turbines.
It would have been the largest wind project in the state, bringing in loads of money for the landowners, the developers, the county and local schools.
But then, an unexpected roadblock: The U.S. Air Force.
Under the dusty fields of Banner County are dozens of nuclear missiles. Housed in military silos dug more than 100 feet into the ground, the Cold War relics lie in wait across rural America, part of the country’s nuclear defenses.
For decades, tall structures like wind turbines needed to be at least a quarter mile away from the missile silos.
But earlier this year, the military changed its policy.
Now, they said, turbines now can’t be within two nautical miles of the silos. The switch ruled out acres of land that energy companies had leased from locals — and wrested a potential windfall from dozens of farmers who’d waited 16 years for the turbines to become reality.
The stalled Banner County project is unique, but it’s one more way that Nebraska struggles to harness its main renewable energy resource.
Oft-windy Nebraska ranks eighth in the country in potential wind energy, according to the federal government. The state’s wind energy output has improved markedly in recent years. But Nebraska continues to lag far behind neighbors Colorado, Kansas and Iowa, all of whom have become national leaders in wind.
The Banner County projects would have grown Nebraska’s wind capacity by 25%. It’s now unclear how many turbines will be possible because of the Air Force’s rule change.
“This would have been a big deal for a lot of farmers. And it would have been an even bigger deal for every property owner in Banner County,” Young said. “It’s just a killer. Don’t know how else to say it.”
LIVING WITH NUKES………………………..
Today, there are decommissioned silos scattered throughout Nebraska. But 82 silos in the Panhandle are still active and controlled 24/7 by Air Force crews.
Four hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles — ICBMs — are burrowed in the ground across northern Colorado, western Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota and Montana. The 80,000-pound missiles can fly 6,000 miles in less than a half-hour and inflict damage 20 times greater than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima in World War II.
“If we ever get bombed, they say this is the first place they’re going to bomb, because of the silos that we’ve got here,” said farmer Tom May.
Every acre of May’s property sits within the two miles of a missile silo. Under the new Air Force rule, he can’t put a single wind turbine on his ground……….
Banner County had what developers called “world-class wind.” Many landowners were eager – signing away their acres came with the promise of roughly $15,000 per turbine per year. The turbines were also going to pump money into the county and school system, said county officials and company executives.
“In Banner County, it would have reduced property taxes to damn near nothing,” Young said they were told.
Eventually, two companies – Invenergy and Orion Renewable Energy Group – finalized plans to put up wind turbines in Banner County.
Environmental impact studies were completed. Permits, leases and contracts were signed.
Orion had 75 to 100 turbines planned, and hoped to have a project operating by this year.
Invenergy was going to build as many as 200 turbines. The company had qualified for federal tax credits to start the project and had even poured the concrete pads that the turbines would sit upon, covering them back up with earth so farmers could use the land until construction began.
But discussions with the military starting in 2019 brought the projects to a screeching halt. Wind turbines pose a “significant flight safety hazard,” an Air Force spokesman said in an email. Those turbines didn’t exist when the silos were built. Now that they dot the rural landscape, the Air Force said it needed to reevaluate its setback rules. The final number it settled on was two nautical miles — 2.3 miles on land …….
…………………………………… For most landowners, the news came as a gutpunch. They said they support national security and keeping service members safe. But they wonder: Is eight times as much distance necessary?
“They don’t own that land. But all of a sudden, they have the power to strike the whole thing down, telling us what we can and can’t do,” Jones said. “All we’d like to do is negotiate. 4.6 miles [diameter] is way too far, as far as I’m concerned.”
………………………………………. By 2010, Nebraska was 25th in the country at producing wind-generated power — the bottom of the pack among windy Great Plains states.
The reasons fueling the lag were uniquely Nebraskan. Nebraska is the only state served entirely by publicly owned utilities, mandated to deliver the cheapest electricity possible.
Federal tax credits for wind farms only applied to the private sector. With a smaller population, already cheap electricity and limited access to transmission lines, Nebraska lacked the market to make wind energy worthwhile.
A decade of legislation helped change that calculus. Public utilities were allowed to buy power from private wind developers. A state law diverted taxes collected from wind developers back to the county and school district — the reason the Banner wind farms may have shrunk taxes for county residents………………………………..
John Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union, said pushback over wind farms has ramped up in recent years. But it’s a loud minority, he said. Eighty percent of rural Nebraskans thought more should be done to develop wind and solar energy, according to a 2015 University of Nebraska-Lincoln poll……………
“This resource is just there, ready to be used,” Brady Jones, John Jones’ son, said. “How do we walk away from that? At a time when we’re passing legislation that would vastly increase investment in wind energy in this country? That energy’s got to come from somewhere.” https://flatwaterfreepress.org/it-was-set-to-be-nebraskas-largest-wind-project-then-the-military-stepped-in/
World’s richest countries fall short on renewable energy targets
Eleven of the 20 largest economies got a C or worse on a renewable energy report
card, which assessed their plans to reach net zero and their targets for
producing and using renewable energy. Most of the world’s 20 largest
economies, known as the G20, lack ambitious renewable energy targets or are
falling short of their climate commitments, according to a report by
climate and renewable energy advocacy groups.
The G20, which includes 19 countries and the European Union (EU) and Spain as a permanent guest, is
responsible for around 80 per cent of global energy-related emissions. This
gives the group significant responsibility to reduce emissions as well as
influence over the world’s pace to decarbonise, says Mike Peirce at the
Climate Group, a UK nonprofit that advocates for climate action.
Peirce, along with others from the Climate Group and a renewable energy research
group called REN21, analysed data on renewable energy development within
G20 countries to rank their progress towards renewable energy goals. A
“sustainable energy transition” is a top priority to be discussed
during the G20’s annual conference in Bali in November.
New Scientist 20th Sept 2022
Australian Capital Territory consumers reap rewards of 100 pct renewables as wind and solar farms hand back windfall profits.
The ACT is the only region of Australia’s main grid spared from sharp
increases in electricity bills, and its consumers can thank the shift to
100 per cent renewables and the structure of their deals with wind and
solar farms.
The ACT government has written contracts with 11 wind and
solar farms to provide the equivalent amount of electricity consumed by
homes and businesses in the ACT each year. The nature of these deals –
called contracts for difference (CfDs) – means that if the wholesale market
trades below the agreed strike price, the government (and consumers), top
up the difference to the wind and solar farms.
But if the wholesale prices are above the strike price – as they have been by a big distance over the
last six months – then the wind and solar farms must return these windfall
gains to ACT consumers. And in the last quarter, as wholesale prices soared
to record highs – and an average of more than $300/MWh in NSW – the wind
and solar farms paid back a total of $58 million to electricity consumers
in the ACT, shielding them from any significant bill hikes.
Renew Economy 22nd Sept 2022
What’s the real price tag for renewable energy for the planet?
A new Stanford study calculated the cost of global renewable energy would
be $62 trillion (yes, with a “t”). But the big upfront investment would
create jobs, drastically reduce carbon emissions, and pay for itself in
just six years.
It was hot this summer—record-shatteringly hot, in many
places. And the extreme heat around the world in the last few months is
only one symptom of the climate change caused by greenhouse gasses, which
are released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels like coal and gas
burn—more extreme droughts, wildfires, flooding, storms, and unseasonable
weather patterns are also symptoms.
Unless we significantly curb how much
coal and gas we burn in the next few decades, scientists are pretty much in
agreement that the consequences will keep getting more severe.
One of the simplest ways to cut back greenhouse gas emissions is in how the
electricity we use is generated. Even though the current system is
dominated by coal, oil, and natural gas, the technology for producing
energy from renewable sources like wind, hydro, and solar is effective,
available, and increasingly economical.
A new study by Stanford engineer
Mark Jacobson and his team published in the journal Energy & Environmental
Science calculates that the world would need to spend around $62 trillion
to build up the wind, solar, and hydro power generating capacity to fully
meet demand and completely replace fossil fuels. That looks like a huge
number, even spread out across the 145 countries cited in the study.
But after crunching the numbers, estimates show that countries would make the
money back in cost-savings in a relatively short period of time: Between
one to five years. The study also projected that shifting to 100 percent
renewable energy generation would result in a net increase of over 28
million jobs when factoring in the fossil fuel industry jobs that would be
lost.
It also only requires 0.36 percent more land than is currently used
for energy generation, addressing two major concerns about switching from
fossil fuels to renewables. Making the shift, and soon, is important to
slow and limit planetary warming. The study called for 100 percent clean
energy by 2035 ideally, and 2050 at the latest, with an interim goal of 80
percent by 2030.
This lines up with the roadmap laid out in the UN’s most
recent climate report and the Paris Agreement, a 2015 international treaty
for climate action that includes reducing global emissions to net-zero by
2050 to avoid worst-case levels of warming.
Adventure 9th Sept 2022
Russia’s Stranglehold On The World’s Nuclear Power Cycle
Radio Free Europe, September 01, 2022 By Kristyna Foltynova [Excellent graphics] “…………………… Here’s how Russia plays a crucial role in the world’s nuclear cycle
It’s Not Just About Mining
Russia is among the five countries with the world’s largest uranium resources. It is estimated to have about 486,000 tons of uranium, the equivalent of 8 percent of global supply…………….
However, uranium mining is just one piece of the nuclear process. Raw uranium is not suitable as fuel for nuclear plants. It needs to be refined into uranium concentrate, converted into gas, and then enriched. And this is where Russia excels.
In 2020, there were just four conversion plants operating commercially — in Canada, China, France, and Russia. Russia was the largest player, with almost 40 percent of the total uranium conversion infrastructure in the world, and therefore produced the largest share of uranium in gaseous form (called uranium hexafluoride).
World Uranium Conversion Capacity
In 2020, almost 40 percent of converted uranium came from Russia.
The same goes for uranium enrichment, the next step in the nuclear cycle. According to 2018 data (the latest available), that capacity was spread among a handful of key players, with Russia once again responsible for the largest share — about 46 percent.Therefore, Russia is a significant supplier of both uranium and uranium enrichment services. According to the latest available data, the European Union purchased about 20 percent of its natural uranium and 26 percent of its enrichment services from Russia in 2020. The United States imported about 14 percent of its uranium and 28 percent of all enrichment services from Russia in 2021.
Purchases Of Natural Uranium
In 2020, Russia supplied about one-fifth of the EU’s natural uranium and was among the top suppliers of uranium to the United States in 2021.
Did Someone Say Nuclear Reactors?
Nuclear reactors made in Russia are known as VVER — an abbreviation for the Russian vodo-vodyanoi enyergeticheskiy reactor (water-water energetic reactor). These reactors use water both as a coolant and as a moderator and were originally developed in the Soviet Union. There are several versions of VVERs (such as the VVER-440 and VVER-1000), with the volume of power being one of the significant differences.
Currently, there are 11 countries where various types of VVERs are operating, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Finland. On top of that, other countries such as Egypt, Turkey, and Argentina currently have these reactors under construction or plan to build them.
Russia is considered the world leader when it comes to the export of nuclear plant development. Between 2012 and 2021, Rosatom initiated construction of 19 nuclear reactors; 15 of these were initiated abroad. That is far more than the next most prolific providers: China, France, and South Korea. Although China started building 29 reactors during the same period, only two of them were initiated abroad. France started building two reactors abroad, and South Korea four.
Exporters Of Nuclear Plants
Between 2012 and 2021, Russia initiated the construction of 15 nuclear reactors abroad.
Don’t Forget The Fuel
To keep the reactors operating, plants need a regular supply of nuclear fuel — usually a certain type of fuel. And this is where another level of dependency on Russia can be observed. Although there are several suppliers on the market, the Russian TVEL Fuel Company is currently the only authorized supplier of fuel needed for VVER-440s……..
Russia is also able to supply high-assay low-enriched uranium (also known as HALEU). It is a type of fuel that will be needed for more advanced reactors that are now under development by many companies across the United States. The main difference from the fuel that is currently being used is the level of uranium enrichment. Instead of up to 5 percent uranium-235 enrichment, the new generation of reactors needs fuel with up to 20 percent enrichment……………. At the moment, the only supplier able to provide the fuel on a commercial scale is Russia’s Tenex (owned by the Russian state-owned company Rosatom).
Looking For New Markets
Selling nuclear technology is also part of Russia’s effort to gain influence and reap profits in countries that are new to nuclear energy. One of the reasons countries want to cooperate with Russia is that it offers a “whole package” solution. Russia can not only build a nuclear plant and supply fuel, but it also trains local specialists, helps with safety questions, runs scholarship programs, and disposes of radioactive waste.
However, offering attractive loans is probably Russia’s most powerful tool. These loans are usually backed by government subsidies and cover at least 80 percent of construction costs. For example, Russia has already lent $10 billion to Hungary, $11 billion to Bangladesh, and $25 billion to Egypt — all to build nuclear power plants.
Russia has operating nuclear reactors in 11 countries, and more are under construction or being planned. Besides that, Russia has also signed either memorandums of understanding or intergovernmental agreements with at least 30 countries around the world, mostly in Africa. These serve as a declaration of interest in nuclear technology or set an intention to cooperate on the building of nuclear plants, respectively.
Russia has operating nuclear reactors in 11 countries, and more are under construction or being planned. Besides that, Russia has also signed either memorandums of understanding or intergovernmental agreements with at least 30 countries around the world, mostly in Africa. These serve as a declaration of interest in nuclear technology or set an intention to cooperate on the building of nuclear plants, respectively.
Some experts warn that African countries might not be ready for nuclear power, but Russia argues that the technology represents an answer to the continent’s increasing demand for electricity. It is also worth noting that African countries represent the largest voting bloc in the United Nations, which might be another reason for Russia to strengthen its ties in the region.
Nuclear Cooperation
There are at least 50 countries with some level of nuclear cooperation with Russia………. https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-nuclear-power-industry-graphics/32014247.html—
Fast transition to renewables will save the world up to $12tn (£10.2tn) by 2050
Switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy could save the world as
much as $12tn (£10.2tn) by 2050, an Oxford University study says. The
report said it was wrong and pessimistic to claim that moving quickly
towards cleaner energy sources was expensive. Gas prices have soared on
mounting concerns over energy supplies. But the researchers say that going
green now makes economic sense because of the falling cost of renewables.
“Even if you’re a climate denier, you should be on board with what we’re
advocating,” Prof Doyne Farmer from the Institute for New Economic Thinking
at the Oxford Martin School told BBC News. “Our central conclusion is that
we should go full speed ahead with the green energy transition because it’s
going to save us money,” he said.
BBC 13th Sept 2022
Plunging costs of renewable energy – as nuclear power costs increase
The tumbling cost of renewable energy means transitioning away from fossil
fuels over the next 30 years will save the world “at least $12 trillion”,
according to researchers at the University of Oxford.
The decarbonisation
of the energy system will not only see a major reduction in the cost of
producing and distributing energy, but will also allow for greater levels
of energy to be produced and therefore help expand energy access around the
planet.
The faster the transition to renewables occurs, the greater the
potential for savings, the team found, and urged governments to recognise
the enormous boost to the global economy, that abandoning fossil fuels will
bring about.
“There is a pervasive misconception that switching to clean,
green energy will be painful, costly and mean sacrifices for us all – but
that’s just wrong,” said Professor Doyne Farmer, who leads the team that
conducted the study at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the
Oxford Martin School. The research team analysed thousands of transition
cost scenarios produced by major energy models and examined data on: 45
years of solar energy costs, 37 years of wind energy costs and 25 years for
battery storage.
They said the research reveals that the real cost of solar
energy dropped twice as fast as the most ambitious projections in these
models, revealing that, over the past 20 years, previous models “badly
overestimated the future costs” of renewable energy technology compared to
the reality of cheap renewables we are already seeing today.
The research also suggests nuclear power will play a diminishing role in the future
global energy mix due to the rising costs of building reactors. “The costs
of nuclear have consistently increased over the last five decades, making
it highly unlikely to be cost competitive with plunging renewable and
storage costs,” the researchers said. Meanwhile, the study showed the costs
for storage technologies, such as batteries and hydrogen electrolysis, are
also likely to fall dramatically.
Independent 13th Sept 2022
Continued drop in France’s nuclear power energy production
Nuclear power generation at EDF’s (EDF.PA) French reactors in August fell
by 37.6% year on year to 18.1 terawatt hours (TWh), mainly due to the
impact of the discovery of stress corrosion, the utility said on Tuesday.
EDF said on its website that total nuclear generation in France since the
start of the year was 191 TWh, down 20.2% compared with January-August
2021.
Reuters 13th Sept 2022
1 This Month
19 February – VIRTUAL EVENT-Decision Time: AI and Our Nuclear Arsenal
12:45 p.m. Central / 1:45 p.m. Eastern
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- February 2026 (127)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 