dilution is not a solution to pollution. It just means that millions of people are going to be exposed to much smaller doses. When it comes to cancer-causing materials, the number of people exposed “is very important” because when even a small dose of tritium or any other radioactive material is allowed to enter the drinking water for millions of people, the number of expected cancers and genetic mutations is magnified by the size of the population”
Everyone agrees a safe solution is needed for Canada’s current and future radioactive waste. But whether a recently approved disposal facility in Deep River, Ont., is the answer is the subject of hot debate.
The “near-surface disposal facility” (NSDF) will see up to one million cubic metres of radioactive waste buried in a shallow mound at Chalk River Laboratories (CRL), about 190 kilometres northwest of Ottawa. Project proponents argue Canada must find a way to store low-level nuclear waste, some of which is currently not well-managed…….
Opponents argue the project, a kilometre from the Ottawa River, poses risks to the drinking water supply for millions, will not safely contain the waste and the company failed to adequately consult many Algonquin Nations. Representatives from six concerned groups recently wrote an open letter to the federal government urging it to halt the project. The waste contains long-lived radionuclides, which many experts say require far more robust containment than this facility will offer.
Radionuclides are unstable, radioactive atoms. Some will remain radioactive for thousands or millions of years, while others are short-lived and decay quickly. The Environmental Protection Agency and other health organizations classify all radionuclides as cancer-causing.
Of the radionuclides present in the waste destined for the NSDF, 19 of 29 listed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) have half-lives of more than a thousand years. This means they’ll be present for more than 10,000 years, said Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, in his 2022 submission to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). Another 12 on the list have half-lives of more than 100,000 years, so they will remain in the NSDF for well over a million years, wrote Edwards, a retired professor of mathematics and science with over 45 years serving as a consultant on nuclear issues.
Several groups and many Algonquin Nations are worried about the radionuclides, particularly one called tritium. This radioactive form of hydrogen is a carcinogen most dangerous when ingested because it enters the waterways with ease and can’t be filtered out with water treatment methods either at CRL or at the municipal level, notes Edwards.
These long-lived radionuclides are in “limited” quantities and “intrinsically part of the radiological fingerprints of waste streams at CRL and other CNL sites,” reads CNL’s submission. “It is not practical, technical, or economical to separate the long-lived radionuclides” because much of the waste is in the form of soil and building debris, it says.
CNL is run by a consortium of private companies (including AtkinsRéalis, formerly known as SNC-Lavalin) and contracted by the federal government to operate its laboratories and deal with waste.
When completed, CNL says the facility will resemble a huge grassy mound the size of 10 soccer fields. The bottom and top of the mound will be lined with synthetic membranes to keep water from getting in, according to CNL.
Construction is expected to take three years and cost $475 million, along with an estimated $275 million in operating costs over 50 years. During that time, CNL will verify all waste placed in the hollowed-out depression in the hillside meets the waste acceptance criteria.
The loose soil and smaller building debris will be compacted into layers and larger debris and waste packaged in drums and containers will be placed in the mound. Water that contacts areas where waste is stored or handled will be routed through a wastewater treatment plant and discharged in nearby Perch Lake. Once all the waste is inside, the final cover of earthen materials and a synthetic membrane go on top to keep precipitation away from the mound.
According to CNL’s draft monitoring plan, wastewater treatment will continue for 30 years and after that, it will be up to the liner and facility design to contain the mound’s contents. Some surveillance will take place to verify the facility is meeting environmental requirements. The top and bottom liners — which are supposed to “remain functional” for 500 years — will eventually erode.
However, it is “a critical flaw” that CNL didn’t plan for waste to be retrieved if something goes wrong later, the Canadian Environmental Law Association argued at the 2022 licensing hearings.
A retrieval plan is important because it gives future generations access to the waste for monitoring, repairs, to move it to a safer location or take advantage of safer technologies in the future, said Tanya Markvart, the law association’s environmental consultant.
“We really don’t know what’s going to happen over the next 100 to 500 or 2,000 years,” said Markvart.
CNL says there’s no plan to retrieve the waste because the facility design will safely manage it long term, but notes nothing is stopping future generations from retrieving its contents. But the law association says it is “unjust to shift the burden” to future generations, who neither created nor benefited from activities that made the radioactive waste………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Water worries
The NSDF’s proximity to the Ottawa River concerns environmentalists, many Algonquin leaders and more than 140 municipalities downstream. CNL materials indicate the facility’s base will be 50 metres above the current water levels of the Ottawa River and on bedrock sloping away from the river.
“Any site anywhere in the Ottawa Valley eventually drains to the river. That’s just basic hydrogeology,” said Mayor D’Eon, a member of CNL’s environmental stewardship council, when asked about opponents’ concern for the river.
“So whether you put it on that military base, which some people have said, or five kilometres away, hydrogeology takes everything to the Ottawa River,” she said.
The bedrock slopes towards Perch Lake, which has a creek that feeds directly into the Ottawa River and in the event of an overflow or other design failure, it wouldn’t take long for contaminated water to reach the lake, according to the Ottawa Riverkeeper, a charity focused on the health of the river and its tributaries. Hydrologist Wilf Ruland reviewed the NSDF proposal for Ottawa Riverkeeper and noted the location has “unfavourable geology” and will rely entirely on the NSDF’s engineered features to contain, collect and treat contaminated water leaching from the mound and prevent it from contaminating groundwater and surface water flow systems. The Ottawa Riverkeeper is also concerned about the presence of chemical contaminants and heavy metals, not just radioactivity.
………………………………. Edwards doesn’t think the waste would cause “a huge kill-off,” after all, “the Ottawa River is huge and the stuff does get diluted,” he told Canada’s National Observer in an interview.
“But we’ve learned over the years that dilution is not a solution to pollution. It just means that millions of people are going to be exposed to much smaller doses.” When it comes to cancer-causing materials, the number of people exposed “is very important” because when even a small dose of tritium or any other radioactive material is allowed to enter the drinking water for millions of people, the number of expected cancers and genetic mutations is magnified by the size of the population, added Edwards.
Pontiac County, Que., made up of 18 municipalities, is right across the river from the facility. Unlike Deep River, which calls itself the “proud home of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories,” Pontiac has opposed the project location from the get-go, said Jane Toller, head of the county council, in an interview with Canada’s National Observer………………………………………………………………………………………….
Toller supports Kitigan Zibi and Kebaowek First Nations, which are currently pressuring the federal government to deny CNL permits required under the Species at Risk Act. Toller says the CNSC’s decision is a “cut-and-dry” violation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which says no hazardous material can be stored on Indigenous land without prior, free and informed consent. While Pikwakanagan First Nation — the Algonquin nation closest to the facility — signed an agreement with CNL, Kitigan Zibi and Kebaowek say they were not adequately consulted and do not consent to the facility.
“I just don’t know why our federal government has not paid attention to that,” said Toller.
The CNSC’s recent decision only granted CNL a licence to construct the facility. The company still must apply for an operating licence.
Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
This is going too far in trivializing risk. And this is not limited to “acceptability” which seems to be ASN’s major concern, but to the risks of such “mixed” installations.
a serious accident situation (AZF, Lubrizol) could damage the SMR unit and transform the accident into a disaster.
Bernard Laponche, Doctor of Science in Nuclear Reactor Physics, President of the Global Chance association,Le Club Mediapart, 5th Feb 2024 https://blogs.mediapart.fr/bernard-laponche/blog/050224/le-dangereux-engouement-pour-les-smr
The development of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) is the subject of spectacular announcements.Based on the declarations of the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) on this subject, we launch an appeal for reason on the realities and difficulties of such projects, on the technical, safety and security levels .
During his press conference on January 31, 2024, the president of the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) addressed the issue of small modular nuclear reactors, known as SMRs, and answered some questions on this subject. In his presentation, the president highlights the technical and societal questions posed by these new reactors, as well as the safety, security and non-proliferation issues “to be integrated upstream of the projects”.
These are the usual concerns when we are interested in nuclear reactors, which produce heat and possibly electricity from fission and chain reactions of fissile elements (uranium, plutonium), but also products fission and transuranium elements found in irradiated fuels currently intended for reprocessing, leading to the accumulation of radioactive waste in addition to that from the dismantling of reactors. These are the problems that will have to be analyzed for candidate SMR reactors, as for any nuclear reactor and with the same rigor as for conventional reactors.
In the same way that a conventional industrial installation cannot claim to be free from all risk of accident, no nuclear installation can claim to be free of any risk of accident. The declaration “a nuclear accident is possible in France” by successive ASN officials is valid for SMRs, even if, as its current president says, certain innovative SMRs “present potentially promising intrinsic safety characteristics” .
The first “prototype” examples of candidate reactors under the title of SMR, that is to say intended to be mass-produced in a factory before installation on site, will therefore have to be built on nuclear sites, probably those housing research reactors.
As ASN points out, the use of SMR in France would not be of great interest for the production of electricity given the importance of the current fleet of EDF power plants and the announced projects. But, on the other hand, SMRs could be very useful for the production of heat or steam for the process industries (paper, food, chemical industries, etc.) of which there are very many.
It would then be necessary to install the SMR reactor very close to the industrial installation or even, according to ASN, inside this installation.
This is going too far in trivializing risk. And this is not limited to “acceptability” which seems to be ASN’s major concern, but to the risks of such “mixed” installations.
Indeed, we cannot admit the presence of a basic nuclear installation, containing highly radioactive materials within a classic industrial installation, of the ICPE type in which a serious accident situation (AZF, Lubrizol) could damage the SMR unit and transform the accident into a disaster.
Furthermore, it is clear that each promoter of an SMR candidate aims for a large order in the number of copies (of the order of a hundred say some) which will allow the “modular” manufacturing of reactors in a dedicated factory, this allowing the supposed reduction in unit cost.
In this case, by eliminating the solution of an SMR in the plant itself, we would have the creation of a large number of INB-ICPE couples. Even if we admit that the probability of an accident on the SMR is lower than for a conventional reactor (which remains to be demonstrated for each case), this probability is multiplied by the number of reactors, all identical.
In examining the safety files for EDF’s large power reactors and nuclear fuel plants, ASN and IRSN pay very close attention to “external attacks” of natural or malicious origin. What happens to these concerns for SMS located almost everywhere on the territory, on locations which are those of the industrial installation which they must supply with heat and whose location was chosen without any concern for nuclear safety and security? ? How would specific protection be organized which, to be effective, would certainly be expensive, especially since the SMRs concerned would be of low power?
The profusion of candidate projects for SMR, some of which are financially supported by the Government, leads to each being examined by the IRSN and the ASN, as announced by the latter. This examination can be postponed over time depending on the maturity of the projects, all of which currently only exist on file, more or less elaborate.
If this examination is done correctly, that is to say with as much care as for a power reactor, the examination of the technical and safety files of each SMR prototype is a considerable task. We can fear that the “craze” for SMRs that ASN speaks of will exert dangerous pressure on the quality of studies and safety and security injunctions.
Finally, but this is not the problem of the IRSN and the ASN, we would still need to have serious information on the costs. Not only that of the construction of a prototype (the example of NuScale in the United States is edifying) but also that of its exploitation and especially that of the fuel, from its manufacture to its treatment after use, dismantling and management garbage.
When we examine in the light of what we know of the climatic upheavals which are already affecting our territory and will intensify considerably, we can really ask ourselves the question of the fragility and the risk of installing a little small nuclear reactors everywhere which will obviously be subject, depending on the period and their site, to floods, droughts, storms, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.
All those who today say they want to welcome an SMR on their territory should really think about it seriously.
A MP said he is supporting efforts to oppose plans to bury nuclear waste in East Yorkshire.
Beverley and Holderness Conservative MP Graham Stuart called on East Riding Council to withdraw from discussions with Nuclear Waste Services (NWS).
The government agency has named South Holderness as a potential site for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).
Mr Graham, who is also the Minister for Energy Security, had previously called for a public vote on the proposals.
He now says he is supporting a motion by two local Conservative councillors, Lyn Healing and Sean McMaster, asking that the local authority stop talks with NWS.
‘Community says no’
“South Holderness is a special place, and the news that the area was being considered as the site for the UK’s GDF shocked many in our community,” Mr Stuart said.
“It is the people of Holderness who should determine what happens in their area and they have made clear their opposition to these plans.”
He added: “Our community says ‘No’ and Lyn and Sean have my backing to seek our withdrawal.”
Ms Healing and Mr McMaster said their motion to withdraw from discussions would be submitted to a full council meeting on 21 February.
“Yes, investment in Holderness is badly required but is this the right investment? We now believe it isn’t,” the councillors said……………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-68233882
A CAMPAIGNER group opposing new nuclear power in Bradwell-on-Sea said they are “deeply concerned” following comments made by an MP. According to the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG), former deputy prime minister Dr Thérèse Coffey showed support for Bradwell as a “logical” landfall site for a substation and converter linking East Anglian offshore wind farms to the on-land national grid. BANNG have now refuted these comments. A spokesman said: “National Grid has made it clear that Bradwell is in the wrong place for the connection, would require upgraded transmission infrastructure and faces environmental constraints from the many designated areas on the Essex coastlands.
As mediation efforts fail to bear fruit, war between Israel and Lebanon seems to be matter of when, not if
Rt.com 7 Feb 24
srael’s Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz met his French counterpart on Monday, warning him that “time [is] running out to find a diplomatic solution in Lebanon,” and indicating that his country was prepared to go to war if diplomacy fails.
The reason is that, since October 7, Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based group linked to Iran, has carried out hundreds of attacks on Israeli targets. Fearing an influx of militants that could potentially invade and conquer parts of the country, some 60,000 northern Israelis have opted to leave, seeking refuge in the center, away from the hostilities.
Atalia Regev, from the community of Abirim about five kilometers from Israel’s border with Lebanon, left her home on October 7, when thousands of Hamas militants invaded southern Israel, massacring an estimated 1,200 people and injuring over 5,000.
“Back then, we were sure that a northern front would [soon] open, and we, too, would face the occupation of the Galilee, a scenario that had been talked about for a long, long time. There was so much fear. So, we packed our bags, took our kids and left,” Atalia recalls.
She was not the only one. As the fighting in the south intensified, some 60,000 Israelis left communities in the north, finding refuge in the center and in Jerusalem, with the hope that the rockets of the Iran-linked militia Hezbollah would not reach them there.
So far, Hezbollah’s attacks have been limited and measured. According to reports, the movement has staged more than a thousand anti-Israel assaults since the beginning of the hostilities. It has also targeted 48 border sites and at least 17 communities. But, for Regev, this was a good reason to stay where she was.
“Even when things calmed down [in the south], we realized we couldn’t go back. Our area was threatened all the time. Educational institutions for children have remained closed until recently. There were multiple power outages due to infrastructure damages [caused by attacks], and at times we had to spend long hours without electricity.”
Drums of War
Now, however, Regev fears, it may get even worse. On January 3 an explosion rocked the suburbs of Beirut, killing Salah Al Arouri, a senior Hamas leader. Although Israel didn’t claim responsibility for the attack, the finger of blame was directed at officials in West Jerusalem, with Nasrallah vowing that the assassination would not remain unanswered.
Since the killing of Al Arouri, Israel has beefed up its presence along the northern border, preparing itself for a potential full-fledged war.
Israel has a reason to worry. According to estimates, Hezbollah has an arsenal of up to 150,000 rockets and missiles. Many of them are long range, able to reach central and southern Israel. Apart from that, the Islamist group also boasts a well-trained army of fighters, and a commando unit – the Radwan force – waiting for an order to storm its enemy………………………………………………….. more https://www.rt.com/news/591907-israel-lebanon-hezbollah-war/
Valery Zaluzhny may find allies in radical nationalists in his standoff with President Vladimir Zelensky, Larry Johnson says
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, who has reportedly been attempting to fire his top general, Valery Zaluzhny, could find himself out of a job before the nation’s top military commander, considering that the latter is backed by armed neo-Nazis, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson has argued.
Amid widespread reports that Zelensky had unsuccessfully tried to sack Zaluzhny, Ukrainian and foreign media described a tense meeting between the pair, with the general reportedly rejecting a call to resign voluntarily and the president hesitating to remove him under pressure from military top brass. Zelensky has since told the press that a major overhaul of the military command was imminent.
In conversation with Nima Alkhorshid, the Brazil-based host of the YouTube channel, Dialogue Works on Sunday, Johnson claimed the soap opera would be hilarious “if hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians weren’t dead and maimed.”
”The guy with the gun usually wins and last time I checked Zaluzhny’s got more guns than Zelensky,” Johnson said.
Comparing the two men, he said the general should not be seen as a “great guy.”
“I don’t want to present Zaluzhny as some sort of military genius or really a good-hearted man,” the commentator remarked. He is “a bit of a scumbag” who “embraces the neo-Nazi ideology,” Johnson claimed.
”He’s been very careful to not insert the most ideologically driven troops – the Azov and the Kraken units – into the front lines where they get killed, because he wants to preserve them. Instead, he is sending the cannon-fodder guys.”
Whether or not Zaluzhny shares the radical nationalist ideology of the Ukrainian far-right is hard to tell from his public statements, but he is believed to have considerable support in those circles.
A social meia post on Friday by Andrey Stempitsky, a Ukrainian military leader and prominent member of the nationalist Right Sector group, featured a photo of him giving Zaluzhny an honorary ID, certifying the general as the first member of Stempitsky’s brigade. A portrait of Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist leader and Nazi collaborator, was in the background of the image.
Zelensky was elected president in 2019 on a platform of reconciliation with rebels in the east and with Russia, but threats of violence by the extreme right made his office pull back from early attempts to deliver on that promise
UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said he would visit the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Russian-occupied Ukraine today to see if it can be run with a reduced number of staff and whether its years-old uranium fuel is safe. Russia gained control of Europe’s largest nuclear power plant after launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, and its six nuclear reactors are now idled.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 7 Feb 24
The genocidal madness of President Biden has no limits.
For 123 days he’s been in near total support of Israel’s genocidal ethnic cleansing of 2,300,000 Palestinians in Gaza. He’s given them over 20,000 tons of war material to kill tens of thousands of Palestinians, destroy three quarters of their housing, send two million fleeing US bombs just to be blasted by more US bombs while on the run. Most hospitals and schools are gone under US bombs. Hundreds of thousands are starving or dying from lack of medicine.
In addition, he’s given them public support and a veto protection at the UN Security Council which called for ceasefire. He’s dismissed the Court of International Justice genocide hearing on Israel’s genocide as “meritless.” Biden and his Israeli counterpart Netanyahu are joined at the bombsight in their combined genocide in Gaza. US deserved to be joined in the dock with Israel in the ICJ hearing.
Now Biden demands $14 billion more to complete the grotesque project he could have stopped on Day 1 simply by denouncing Israel’s genocidal ethnic cleansing in Gaza, and cutting off every bloody dollar of aid.
Half of Americans polled say Israel has gone too far. Fully a third call it genocide. Biden calls it ‘helping our best ally.’ On Genocide Day 100, he honored Israel without a single mention of the 2,300,000 Palestinians whose lives were being degraded, if not destroyed with his help.
Joe Biden has supported every failed US war of world dominance for half a century. He won’t admit it, but the Israeli war to cleanse Gaza of Palestinians may already have failed. Palestinian resistance and worldwide revulsion and condemnation may bring about the downfall of Israel as well as Gaza.
Joe Biden is the 45th man to occupy the White House. He’s earning the dubious distinction of becoming the first Genocide President.
A MintPress study of major U.S. media outlets’ coverage of the Yemeni Red Sea blockade has found an overwhelming bias in the press, which presented the event as an aggressive, hostile act of terrorism by Ansar Allah (a.k.a. the Houthis), who were presented as pawns of the Iranian government. While constantly putting forward pro-war talking points, the U.S. was portrayed as a good faith, neutral actor being “dragged” into another Middle Eastern conflict against its will.
Since November, Ansar Allah has been conducting a blockade of Israeli ships entering the Red Sea in an attempt to force Israel to stop its attack on the people of Gaza. The U.S. government, which has refused to act to stop a genocide, sprang into action to prevent damage to private property, leading an international coalition to bomb targets in Yemen.
The effect of the blockade has been substantial. With hundreds of vessels taking the detour around Africa, big businesses like Tesla and Volvo have announced they have suspended European production. Ikea has warned that it is running low on supplies, and the price of a standard shipping container between China and Europe has more than doubled. Ansar Allah, evidently, has been able to target a weak spot of global capitalism.
Western airstrikes on Yemen, however, according to Ansar Allah spokesperson Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, at least, said that they have had only a “very limited” impact so far. Al-Bukhaiti made these comments in a recent interview with MintPress News.
For full information and coding, see the attached viewable spreadsheet. [on original]
BIASED REPORTING.
The study found the media wildly distorted reality, presenting a skewed picture that aided U.S. imperial ambitions. For one, every article in the study (60 out of 60) used the word “Houthis” rather than “Ansar Allah” to describe the movement which took part in the Yemeni Revolution of 2011 and rose up against the government in 2014, taking control of the capital Sanaa, becoming the new de facto government. Many in Yemen consider the term “Houthi” to be a derogatory term for an umbrella movement of people. As Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, Head of Yemen’s Supreme Revolutionary Committee, told MintPress:
‘Houthis’ is not a name we apply to ourselves. We refuse to be called Houthis. It is not from us. It is a name given to us by our enemies in an attempt to frame the broad masses in Yemeni society that belong to our project.”
Yet only two articles even mentioned the name “Ansar Allah” at all.
Since 2014, Ansar Allah has been in control of the vast majority of Yemen, despite a U.S.-backed Saudi coalition attempting to beat them back and restore the previous administration.
Many of the articles studied, however (22 of the 60 in total), did not present Ansar Allah as a governmental force but rather as a “tribal group” (the New York Times), a “ragtag but effective” rebel organization (CNN), or a “large clan” of “extremists” (NBC News). Fourteen articles went further, using the word “terrorist” in reference to Ansar Allah, usually in the context of the U.S. government or American officials calling them such.
Some, however, used it as a supposedly uncontroversial descriptor. One Fox article, for example, read: “For weeks, the Yemeni terrorist group’s actions have been disrupting maritime traffic, while the U.S. military has been responding with strikes.” And a CNN caption noted that U.S. forces “conducted strikes on 8 Houthi targets in Iranian-backed Houthi terrorist-controlled areas of Yemen on January 22.”
Ansar Allah is responding to an Israeli onslaught that has killed tens of thousands of civilians and displaced around 1.9 million Gazans. Yet Israel and its actions were almost never described as “terrorism,” despite arguably fitting the definition far better than the Yemeni movement. The sole exception to this was a comment from al-Houthi, whom CNN quoted as calling Israel a “terrorist state.” Neither the United States nor its actions were ever described using such language……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.mintpressnews.com/new-study-shows-media-pushing-us-war-yemen/286754/
We tend to believe that the Noetic International Inc. is a vivid example of the Continental Hotel from the John Wick franchise, where you can get any service at any time anywhere on Earth.
Earlier we wrote that the CEO of the Noetic International Inc. was Johnna May Holeman, a former U.S. artillery soldier and CIA operative, who took part in the supply of 155mm white phosphorus rounds to Ukraine through a tea-trade company in Bulgaria.
Now we can say that there was another CIA officer behind the creation of the Noetic International Inc. Ladies and gentlemen, please meet John Alan Irvin – the godfather of clandestine operations.
So, it was John’s idea to establish a company that would carry out the CIA’s clandestine activities without attracting much attention. However, being a top-tier spy John himself does not really conceal his affiliation with the Agency. According to his track record, John is a specialist in the field of analyzing the activities of covert secret agents. He also has decades of experience conducting clandestine operations.
Through his extensive ties, resources and expertise, John Irvin has developed a vast network of contacts, informants and partners to achieve a comprehensive range of goals in accordance with the CIA’s design. Given John’s age, today the bulk of the work is now done by Johnna Holeman. The Noetic International Inc. has offices in Illinois, California, Germany, England and Austria.
The Noetic “specialists” address complex problems in wide range of domains including air- and sea-based drones, renewable energy, cybersecurity & cryptocurrency, technology & robotics, as well as strategic influence campaigns and analysis & decision making.
The network includes hundreds of influencers connected by both personal acquaintance and virtual meetings. The Noetic operatives help local and foreign authorities to achieve goals in order to enlist the support afterwards.
According to our source, the Noetic International Inc. has a shell company in Puerto Rico, that under the guise of cannabis dispensary addresses essential tasks on behalf of the CIA, such as supply of various kinds of unmanned aerial and maritime drones to foreign countries, including Ukraine, reshore of semiconductor production to the U.S., as well as the supply of small-module nuclear reactors.
One of the noblest and most important things a western journalist can do these days is help expose the propagandistic manipulations of the mainstream western press institutions who have duped our civilization into consenting to a profoundly dysfunctional status quo which does not serve the interests of normal human beings. Unfortunately this rarely happens, because western journalists tend to view the mainstream press as allies and potential employers.
This happens to be one such rare occasion, and it happened in one of the lastplaces you’d probably have guessed if you follow mass media propaganda with a critical eye. The Guardian has a great new article out titled “CNN staff say network’s pro-Israel slant amounts to ‘journalistic malpractice’” by a guy named Chris McGreal which cites multiple CNN staff members and internal documents to reveal the immense top-down pressure in the network to tilt coverage heavily in favor of Israel.
McGreal writes the following:
“CNN is facing a backlash from its own staff over editorial policies they say have led to a regurgitation of Israeli propaganda and the censoring of Palestinian perspectives in the network’s coverage of the war in Gaza.
“Journalists in CNN newsrooms in the US and overseas say broadcasts have been skewed by management edicts and a story-approval process that has resulted in highly partial coverage of the Hamas massacre on 7 October and Israel’s retaliatory attack on Gaza.
“‘The majority of news since the war began, regardless of how accurate the initial reporting, has been skewed by a systemic and institutional bias within the network toward Israel,’ said one CNN staffer. ‘Ultimately, CNN’s coverage of the Israel-Gaza war amounts to journalistic malpractice.’”
McGreal’s sources say CNN’s wildly biased coverage of Israel’s assault on Gaza is the direct result of edicts from the network’s new CEO Mark Thompson, who assumed his role two days after the October 7 attack. From 2012 to 2020 Thompson was the president and CEO of The New York Times, which is currently experiencing its own internal strife due to the pro-Israel bias of that outlet.
Before his NYT executive gig Thompson was the director-general of the BBC, where he came under fire multiple times for the pro-Israel bias he imposed on the British state broadcaster. In 2005 he held meetings in Jerusalem with then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with the reported aim to “build bridges with the country’s political class,” immediately after which he removed BBC correspondent Orla Guerin from Jerusalem following accusations of “antisemitism” made against her by the Israeli government. In 2009 he was hotly criticized for choosing not to air the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza, and in 2011 he presided over the decision to censor the lyrics “free Palestine” from a performance by rapper Mic Righteous on BBC Radio 1Xtra.
This is the sort of person who gets hired to multiple executive positions in multiple highly influential western media platforms. If you’ve ever wondered why it looks like the western press function in pretty much the same way as the state propaganda services in the autocracies the west proudly sets itself apart from, this is why. The corporate media are owned and controlled by plutocrats who have a vested interest in preserving the status quo power structure upon which their kingdoms are built, and state broadcasters like the BBC have the same interest for the same reason. They decide who the executives of those outlets will be, and those executives make policy and hiring decisions which cause the outlet to function in a way that is indistinguishable from state propaganda.
These are the people who’ve been pulling the wool over the eyes of the mainstream public and manipulating the masses into thinking, speaking, working, consuming, and voting in ways that serve the interests of the ruling power structure. In this way they are able to ensure that revolutionary opposition to that power structure remains a fringe minority position, even as that power structure wages wars, sponsors genocides, destroys the biosphere, and keeps everyone poor, sick, and stupid.
Our world will never see the revolutionary changes it desperately needs until the people begin using the power of their numbers to force those changes to happen, and the people will never start using the power of their numbers to force revolutionary change as long as they are being manipulated by propagandists into accepting the status quo. Our task therefore, as people who love truth and desire a healthy world, is to begin waking the public up to the reality that everything they’ve been told about their society, their government and their world is a lie, and pointing them toward true information about what’s really going on.
That’s how humanity will awaken from its propaganda-induced coma to create a healthy world: one pair of eyelids at a time. This might sound like a slow-going project, but for every newly opened pair of eyes there is one more voice who can help wake up the others, which means exponential growth is possible. This is how we move humanity into the light of truth and begin the shift toward a truth-based society.
And we’ve got an advantage: the empire needs to use human beings to generate its propaganda. That’s what we’re seeing in CNN staff turning against their boss and reporting his malfeasance to another news outlet. As long as the empire depends on ordinary human beings to turn its gears and facilitate its horrific atrocities, there’s always the possibility that the next pair of eyes to open will be someone on the inside.
The push for more balanced coverage has been complicated by Israel’s block on foreign journalists entering Gaza except under IDF control and subject to censorship. That has helped keep the full impact of the war on Palestinians off of CNN and other channels while ensuring that there is a continued focus on the Israeli perspective.
Insiders say pressure from the top results in credulous reporting of Israeli claims and silencing of Palestinian perspectives
Insiders say pressure from thetop results in credulous reporting of Israeli claims and silencing of Palestinian perspectives
CNN is facing a backlash from its own staff over editorial policies they say have led to a regurgitation of Israeli propaganda and the censoring of Palestinian perspectives in the network’s coverage of the war in Gaza.
Journalists in CNN newsrooms in the US and overseas say broadcasts have been skewed by management edicts and a story-approval process that has resulted in highly partial coverage of the Hamas massacre on 7 October and Israel’s retaliatory attack on Gaza.
“The majority of news since the war began, regardless of how accurate the initial reporting, has been skewed by a systemic and institutional bias within the network toward Israel,” said one CNN staffer. “Ultimately, CNN’s coverage of the Israel-Gaza war amounts to journalistic malpractice.”
According to accounts from six CNN staffers in multiple newsrooms, and morethan a dozen internal memos and emails obtained by the Guardian, daily news decisions are shaped by a flow of directives from the CNN headquarters in Atlanta that have set strict guidelines on coverage.
They include tight restrictions on quoting Hamas and reporting other Palestinian perspectives while Israel government statements are taken at face value. In addition, every story on the conflict must be cleared by the Jerusalem bureau before broadcast or publication.
CNN journalists say the tone of coverage is set at the top by its new editor-in-chief and CEO, Mark Thompson, who took up his post two days after the 7 October Hamas attack. Some staff are concerned about Thompson’s willingness to withstand external attempts to influence coverage given that in a former role as the BBC’s director general he was accused of bowing to Israeli government pressure on a number of occasions, including a demand to remove one of the corporation’s most prominent correspondents from her post in Jerusalem in 2005.
CNN insiders say that has resulted, particularly in the early weeks of the war, in a greater focus on Israeli suffering and the Israeli narrative of the war as a hunt for Hamas and its tunnels, and an insufficient focus on the scale of Palestinian civilian deaths and destruction in Gaza.
One journalist described a “schism” within the network over coverage they said was at times reminiscent of the cheerleading that followed 9/11.
“There’s a lot of internal strife and dissent. Some people are looking to get out,” they said.
Another journalist in a different bureau said that they too saw pushback.
“Senior staffers who disagree with the status quo are butting heads with the executives giving orders, questioning how we can effectively tell the story with such restrictive directives in place,” they said.
“Many have been pushing for more content from Gaza to be alerted and aired. By the time these reports go through Jerusalem and make it to TV or the homepage, critical changes – from the introduction of imprecise language to an ignorance of crucial stories – ensure that nearly every report, no matter how damning, relieves Israel of wrongdoing.”
CNN staff say that some journalists with experience of reporting the conflict and region have avoided assignments in Israel because they do not believe they will be free to tell the whole story. Others speculate that they are being kept away by senior editors.
“It is clear that some who don’t belong are covering the war and some who do belong aren’t,” said one insider.
Edicts from on high
………………. In late October, as the Palestinian death toll rose sharply from Israeli bombing with more than 2,700 children killed according to the Gaza health ministry, and as Israel prepared for its ground invasion, a set of guidelines landed in CNN staff inboxes.
……………….CNN staff members said the memo solidified a framework for stories in which the Hamas massacre was used to implicitly justify Israeli actions, and that other context or history was often unwelcome or marginalised.
“How else are editors going to read that other than as an instruction that no matter what the Israelis do, Hamas is ultimately to blame? Every action by Israel – dropping massive bombs that wipe out entire streets, its obliteration of whole families – the coverage ends up massaged to create a ‘they had it coming’ narrative,” said one staffer.
The same memo said that any reference to casualty figures from the Gaza health ministry must say it is “Hamas-controlled”, implying that reports of the deaths of thousands of children were unreliable even though the World Health Organization and other international bodies have said they are largely accurate. CNN staff said that edict was laid down by Thompson at an earlier editorial meeting.
Broader oversight of coverage from the CNN headquarters in Atlanta is directed by “the Triad” of three CNN departments: news standards and practices, legal and fact-checking.
David Lindsay, the senior director of news standards and practices, issued a directive in early November effectively barring the reporting of mostHamas statements, characterising them as “inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda”.
………. one CNN staffer noted that the network repeatedly aired inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda from Israeli officials and American supporters, often without challenge in interviews.
They noted that other channels have carried interviews with Hamas leaders while CNN has not, including one in which the group’s spokesman, Ghazi Hamad, cut short questions from the BBC when he was challenged about the murder of Israeli civilians. One staffer said there is a view among correspondents that it is “agony to get a Hamas interview past the Triad
…………………………………………………….. In addition to the edicts from Atlanta, CNN has a longstanding policy that all copy on the Israel-Palestine situation must be approved for broadcast or publication by the Jerusalem bureau. In July, the network created a process it called “SecondEyes” to speed up those approvals.
…………… One result of SecondEyes is that Israeli official statements are often quickly cleared and make it on air on the principle that that they are to be trusted at face value, seemingly rubber-stamped for broadcast, while statements and claims from Palestinians, and not just Hamas, are delayed or never reported.
One CNN staffer said edits by SecondEyes often seemed aimed at avoiding criticism from pro-Israel groups……………………………..
Some CNN staff fear that the result is a network acting as a surrogate censor on behalf of the Israeli government.
“The system results in chosen individuals editing any and all reporting with an institutionalised pro-Israel bias, often using passive language to absolve the [Israel Defense Forces] of responsibility, and playing down Palestinian deaths and Israeli attacks,” said one of the network’s journalists.
……………………………………………………………. Another presenter, Sara Sidner, drew criticism for her excitable report on unverified Israeli claims that Hamas beheaded dozens of babies on 7 October.
“We have some really disturbing new information out of Israel,” she announced four days after the attack.
“The Israeli prime minister’s spokesman just confirmed, babies and toddlers were found with their heads decapitated in Kfar Aza in southern Israel after Hamas attacks in the kibbutz over the weekend. That has been confirmed by the prime minister’s office.”
………………… Gold, who was part of the SecondEyes team approving stories, again said the report had been confirmed by Netanyahu’s office and she drew parallels with the Holocaust. She responded to a Hamas denial that it had decapitated babies as unbelievable “when we literally have video of these guys, of these militants, of these terrorists doing exactly what they say they’re not doing to civilians and to children”.
Except, as a CNN journalist pointed out, the network did not have such video and, apparently, neither did anyone else………………………………….
By the time of Sidner’s broadcast there were already good reasons for CNN to treat the claims with caution.
Israeli journalists who toured Kfar Aza the day before said they had seen no evidence of such a crime and military officials there had made no mention of it. Instead, Tim Langmaid, the Atlanta-based CNN vice-president and senior editorial director, sent an instruction that President Biden’s claims to have seen pictures of the alleged atrocity “back up what the Israeli government said”.
…….. CNN insiders said senior editors should have treated the story with caution from the beginning because the Israeli military has a track record of false or exaggerated claims that subsequently fall apart.
Other networks, such as Sky News, were considerably more sceptical in their reporting and laid out the tenuous origins of the story, which began with a reporter for an Israeli news channel saying soldiers had told her that 40 children had been killed in the Hamas massacre and that one soldier had said he had seen “bodies of babies with their heads cut off”. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) then used the claim to liken Hamas to the Islamic State.
Even after the White House admitted that neither the president nor his officials had themselves seen pictures of beheaded babies, and that they had been relying on Israeli claims, Langmaid told the newsroom it could still report the Israeli government assertions alongside a denial from Hamas.
CNN did report on the rolling back of the claims as Israeli officials backtracked, but one staffer said that by then the damage had been done, describing the coverage as a failure of journalism.
“The infamous ‘beheaded babies’ claim, attributed to the Israeli government, made it to air for roughly 18 hours – even after the White House walked back on Biden’s statement that he had seen the nonexistent photos. CNN had no access to photographic evidence, nor any ability to independently verify these claims,” they said.
……….. Some CNN staff raised similar issues with reporting on Hamas tunnels in Gaza and claims they led to a sprawling command centre under al-Shifa hospital.
The push for more balanced coverage has been complicated by Israel’s block on foreign journalists entering Gaza except under IDF control and subject to censorship. That has helped keep the full impact of the war on Palestinians off of CNN and other channels while ensuring that there is a continued focus on the Israeli perspective………………………………
The only foreign journalist to report from Gaza without an Israeli escort has been CNN’s Clarissa Ward, who entered for two hours with a humanitarian team from the United Arab Emirates.
……………. she was being prevented from conveying a fuller picture of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza because of the Israeli block on foreign journalists, putting the burden solely on a limited number of courageous Palestinian reporters who are being killed in disproportionate numbers.
“We must now be able to report on the horrific death and destruction being meted out in Gaza in the same way – on the ground, independently – amid one of the most intense bombardments in the history of modern warfare,” she wrote.
“The response to our report on Gaza in Israeli media suggests an unspoken reason for denying access. When asked on air about our piece, one reporter from the Israeli Channel 13 replied, ‘If indeed Western reporters begin to enter Gaza, this will for sure be a big headache for Israel and Israeli hasbara.’ Hasbara is a Hebrew word for pro-Israel advocacy.
Some at CNN fear that its coverage of the latest Gaza war is damaging a reputation built up by its reporting of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which led to a surge in viewers. But others say that the Ukraine war may be part of the problem because editorial standards grew lax as the network and many of its journalists identified clearly with one side – Ukraine – particularly at the beginning of the conflict.
One CNN staffer said that Ukraine coverage set a dangerous precedent that has come back to haunt the network because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is far more divisive and views are much more deeply entrenched.
“The complacency in our editorial standards and journalistic integrity while reporting on Ukraine has come back to haunt us. Only this time, the stakes are higher and the consequences much more severe. Journalistic complacency is an easier pill for the world to swallow when it’s Arab lives lost instead of European,” they said.
Another CNN employee said the double standards are glaring…………………………………………………
Ever since South African Energy Minister Dr Kgosientsho Ramokgopa announced that Cabinet had approved the updated Integrated Resource Plan last December, local media has been awash with articles by nuclear supporters and sundry lobbyists exhorting politicians and government to ‘show true leadership’ and ‘do the right thing’ when it comes to nuclear power.
Invariably, doing so means showing unwavering support for the government’s plans to expand nuclear energy generation capacity by choosing the particular nuclear technology or reactor design favored by the author of the article being read or following the guidelines they helpfully drew up to assist policymakers by advising how they ought to proceed going about doing so, even if this means going against the recommendations of the presidentially-appointed panel of experts who sit on the Presidential Climate Commission or failing to address the numerous criticisms that have been leveled against government’s nuclear plans, prominent South African nuclear scientists among them. Presumably, depending on the responses these articles elicit, individual politicians would then be lauded for the leadership and courage they have shown or berated for their lack thereof.
It is curious, not to mention ironic, to hear such sentiments expressed by pro-nuclear supporters, especially those who have long attempted to portray the decision to ‘go nuclear’ as a self-evident outcome of a purely technical decision-making process that is obviously best left to ‘the experts’ i.e. appointed and unelected technocrats who are supposedly immune to political interference.
It is also somewhat misleading of them to characterize the decision to support the expansion of nuclear power capacity as one requiring ‘courage’ as such given the scant detail government has provided on its nuclear plans, the few general nuclear education and public awareness campaigns on nuclear power it has run within and outside of the communities in which it is proposed that reactors be located in future and the critical information related to its past nuclear dealings and the planned Koeberg life expansion project amongst others it has allegedly deliberately withheld from the public.
All of these combined result in persistent and extremely low public levels of knowledge of nuclear power and related issues, so much so that the general public appears ambivalent about the issue of nuclear power. This assessment seems to be supported by the persistently low turnout that is observed at the perfunctory public hearings which the government seemingly hosts to satisfy administrative requirements surrounding public participation in order to mitigate any potential for conflict to arise in the future rather than to genuinely engage the public’s views on nuclear power.
Subsequently, the organized anti-nuclear political movement nationally is under-resourced and the level of grassroots public support it enjoys is uncertain. Considering the limited organized opposition thereto and the general public’s nuclear indifference, none but the most biased observer would be reluctant to concede that the decision to champion nuclear power is unlikely to demand much by way of boldness or courage from the individual politician. More so since nuclear power, by its nature, accords so conveniently with the motivations of the average individual politician to amass more power and influence for themselves and members of their class and has the power to undermine the public oversight mechanisms and regulatory frameworks set up to monitor them. Yet perhaps the biggest reason why nuclear power is likely to appeal to representatives of SA’s major political parties especially is because it could enable their parties to navigate the political forces that assail them…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
It is apparent from the scenarios described above that political imperatives dictate the adoption of a pro-nuclear position by politicians from all the major political parties in SA irrespective of the political ideologies they espouse or the content or merits of the specific nuclear plan under review. Under these circumstances, exhorting politicians to support nuclear power is akin to urging them to act to protect their party’s narrow political interests. One submits to the reader that this does not seem to be particularly brave or courageous.
In contrast, it would require a tremendous amount of courage for a politician to acknowledge and act on the insight that the distortions introduced by prevailing political considerations render it impossible for them to hold robust internal political debates on the issue of nuclear power, more so considering the increased frequency with which ostensible party comrades have resorted to using deadly methods to eliminate potential rivals. It is, therefore, naïve to rely on the party political system to formulate positions on nuclear power that are truly in the nation’s best interest.
……………………………………………… they could opt to support the right of every citizen to act with the courage and integrity nuclear supporters claim they want politicians to by calling upon the government to submit its nuclear plans to a popular referendum. In a country where citizens have become fed up by years of maladministration and corruption and large sections of the electorate are beginning to lose faith in the democratic system itself, this display of political courage would serve as definitive proof of the leadership credentials of the politician who wanted to ‘do the right thing’ by their compatriots.
Sunday, 02/04/2024, Umud Shokri, Iran International
Iran’s recently stated plan to build four more nuclear power reactors has raised questions about its feasibility as the country wrestles with economic crisis and isolation.
According to early estimates, work has started in the southern region with a five-thousand-megawatt total capacity in mind. With 4,000 employment prospects and an estimated $20 billion cost, the planned nine-year schedule raises questions under current economic circumstances.
The difficulties Iran has faced in building new power plants in the last ten years raise doubts about whether the 25,000 megawatts of new electricity that the previous national development plan sought to bring about can be achieved.
The Iranian government pledged to raise the percentage of renewable and clean energy power plants to a minimum of five percent in line with the sixth development plan (2017–2021). However, the share of nuclear power is currently one percent, which means that the program’s goals have been significantly missed………..
The only nuclear power plant in the country is a 1,000 megawatt facility that started up in 2011 with help from Russia. A 300 megawatt plant is reportedly under construction in Khuzestan.
Building times for nuclear power plants vary greatly due to factors like supply chain maturity, design revisions, and project management efficiency, but Iran faces a severe electricity shortage now. Consumption peaked at over 72,000 megawatts in 2023, surpassing the actual production capacity of power plants, capped at 60,000 megawatts during the warm season.
Iran is facing several obstacles in its efforts to build further nuclear power reactors, including financial and technological constraints, geopolitical and political instability, and international sanctions. The interplay of political and economic dynamics, together with worries about public opinion, safety, and international compliance, complicate Iran’s nuclear energy development scenario. Moreover, Mohammad Eslami, the head of Iran’s nuclear energy said last week that Tehran is planning to build the new reactors relying on domestic financing and knowhow……………………………………………………………….
Examining Iran’s foreign policy, one can see that the country is committed to scientific progress even in the face of external challenges, as seen by its tenacity in pursuing its nuclear program despite sanctions. Careful navigation is necessary to resolve the delicate dance between energy demands, geopolitical concerns, and the difficulties presented by international sanctions. Iran’s prospects for the energy sector both at home and abroad will depend on how well it can surmount these challenges https://www.iranintl.com/en/202402034292
t last year’s COP28 climate conference in Dubai, French President Emmanuel Macron triumphantly declared that “nuclear energy is back”. His celebratory remark was uttered after France led a group of 20 countries in signing a pledge to “triple nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050”.
Since the summit, a range of announcements and promises have been made that appear to support France’s ‘nuclear renaissance’. In November, the European Parliament backed the development of small modular reactors (SMRs), a versatile technology that many consider to be the future of the industry. Two months later, Energy Transition Minister Agnes Pannier- Runacher said that France will need to build 14 new nuclear power plants rather than the six currently planned if the country is to meet its energy transition goals.
Is all this optimism warranted? France has long been a nuclear superpower but lost its position as the world’s second-largest producer of nuclear energy to China in 2022, with the US coming in first. It is worth considering whether Macron’s positivity is justified in the context of several issues that currently beset the country’s industry, including EDF’s unpredictable performance, lack of strong allies in the European Council, slow progress on SMR development and Russian interdependence.
EDF’s annus horribilis
Électricité de France (EDF) is the French multinational electric utility company that runs the country’s 56 reactors. Throughout 2022, many were forced offline for maintenance work, causing output to fall below 1990 levels, despite installed capacity being 5GW lower at this time.
Nuclear shutdowns are in themselves not a huge cause for concern. Older power plants need to be updated with the latest technologies and France was planning on widespread shutdowns for its ‘Grand Carénage’ refurbishment programme anyway. However, the nature of these specific stoppages was worrying.
In December 2021, the discovery of cracks in the emergency core cooling systems of four of the newest French reactors led to them being shut down. The four units, which each produce 1.5GW, did not generate a single kilowatt-hour throughout 2022. Other 1.3GW reactors also showed similar symptoms, and by mid-2022, 12 additional reactors were shut down due to the same problem. In its annual electricity review, Réseau de Transport d’Électricité highlighted the crux of the issue, stating, “these outages, or outage extensions to carry out maintenance, tests and repairs where needed, primarily involved the newest reactors in the fleet (N4 and P4 designs), i.e. reactors that were not targeted for investment in the Grand Carénage refit programme”.
Although EDF’s nuclear output was 14.8% higher in 2023 than 2022 as reactors came back online, Macron will have to square his desire for new reactors with the ongoing threat of unplanned shutdowns at existing newer plants. Mycle Schneider, nuclear analyst and author of the annual World Nuclear Status Reports, commented on the ongoing unpredictability of EDF’s output, stating: “We have repeatedly seen that EDF was off by several gigawatts of nuclear capacity availability in predictions for the following week. If you look at availability on a certain day, and then go back one week, nuclear availability is several gigawatts different to the projection made a week previously.”
Seeking international allies……………………………………………….
SMRs – a false dawn?
The creation of the EU SMR Industrial Alliance in November accentuates the blocs’ commitment to modular technology in its nuclear drive. Naturally, France led the group of 11 countries signing the alliance.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE) defines SMRs as advanced nuclear fission reactors that have a power generation capacity of up to 300MW per unit – around a third of the capacity of traditional reactors. The ‘small’ and ‘modular’ nature of their design means they can be sited at locations unsuited to larger nuclear power plants. Their diminutive size is also meant to save on construction time and cost.
Despite significant optimism around the technology, little progress has been made on the ground. The most advanced SMR project in the western world was forcibly abandoned in November 2023 due to excessive costs. US-based NuScale scrapped the development with a conglomerate of Utah municipalities after the cost estimate of the project increased to $9.3bn, bringing the cost per kilowatt to $20,000 for the plant, around twice the cost of the most expensive European pressurised water reactor.
Subsequently, there are no SMRs in commercial operation in the west. Placing the EU alliance in this context, Schneider said: “We are not talking commercial contracts. It is like this alliance [EU SMR Industrial Alliance], which is kind of nice. Everybody [the 11 signatories] puts a name under it, but it does not mean anything in industrial terms.”
Even in Russia, where SMR output has been achieved (although, not commercially), there have been construction issues. The reactor took more than 12.7 years to build, more than three-times the 3.7-year target. Schneider noted that this “was not really the demonstration of easy, quick feasibility” that SMRs are meant to be. China too has two operational SMRs, but no production or cost figures on the reactors are yet available.
Overcoming Russian interdependency
Russia is still the primary constructor and exporter of nuclear reactors, with the state company Rosatom, as of mid-2023, building 24 out of the 58 constructed around the world. While France has taken part in a host of EU sanctions placed on Russian energy exports designed to curb revenue for the Kremlin’s war on Ukraine, the measures have not included sanctions on the nuclear sector………………………………………………….
While France is looking to build an alliance with EU nations that still have strong links with the Russian nuclear sector, its own institutions are also interlinked. Framatome, an EDF subsidiary, originally planned to set up a joint venture with Rosatom subsidiary TVEL to manufacture VVER fuel elements in its Lingen plant in Germany. However, in spring 2023, it became clear that the German Government would likely oppose the deal, so the Franco-Russian company was set up in France, with TVEL owning 25% of it. Advanced Nuclear Fuels, a Framatome subsidiary that operates the Lingen plant, wants to extend the manufacturing plant with a dedicated VVER-fuel production line. The Lower Saxony Government is opposed to the project, but under the Atomic Law it does not have a veto right. This leaves the decision in the hands of the federal government, which as of January 2024, has not been taken. Schneider noted the irregularity of the Framatome-Rosatom partnership, considering Framatome could have worked with Westinghouse given the US company’s capability to manufacture VVER fuel. He added that although the reason for this decision is unclear and there is limited evidence to illustrate strong reasoning, “it is quite likely to do with technical difficulties” with the Westinghouse fuel.
As France looks to expand its nuclear industry, there will be challenges, both within its domestic industry and its international relations, that the country will have to address. France’s nuclear watchdog recently said there was “lack of rigour and performance” in EDFs supply chain monitoring and this will have to improve if output is to become stable. While Italy has signalled its desire to re-establish nuclear power, if plans remain unrealised, it is unlikely to be a reliable nuclear ally within the EU council – something which France desperately needs if it is to push through nuclear friendly legislation. SMRs could become a key source of nuclear energy if on-the-ground development begins in earnest, but so far progress has been limited to hopeful pledges. As long as it remains largely dependent on the tenuous, unpredictable Russian regime for its nuclear fuel generation, France’s nuclear plans will have an insecure foundation. If France is to materialise its abstract nuclear dreams into everyday energy production, it will need to address each of these issues pragmatically. https://www.power-technology.com/news/france-has-laid-out-ambitious-nuclear-plans-but-challenges-remain/?cf-view&cf-closed
