nuclear-news

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

U.S. China policy: a perilous arms race instead of waging critical co-operation

U.S. belligerence will be met with more Chinese belligerence and vice versa as the perils and risk increase.
William Hartung (See, Center for International Policy) points out – a far brighter future would come from intense U.S. and China cooperation on the climate crises, averting pandemics, ocean preservation, and international arms accords including cybersecurity. Wage peace and pursue mutual self-interest as if our children and grandchildren matter.

Relations between major nations are shaped by momentum in one direction or another. Both U.S. political parties have chosen a militant path without an exit strategy – one that must please Lockheed Martin and the rest of the military-industrial complex.


Ralph Nader 12 July 22, Did the Biden officials know what they were doing when they announced a broad expansion of export controls on China? China is the world’s second-largest economy, which is intricately intertwined with the economy of the U.S. and other nations. This is mainly due to U.S. multinational companies exporting huge slices of our manufacturing economy to China for its cheap labor.

What is the White House and the Department of Commerce thinking? China is not Venezuela nor is it Russia, a weak and dependent economy with a GDP smaller than Italy. Do these brazen Bidenites realize the consequences of a grand list of technologies and knowhow being barred from China?
As the dominant imperial world power, the U.S. is struggling to understand how to deal with an aggressive rising power like China building spheres of influence around the world through exports, loans, development contracts, and technical assistance. It’s okay that we have military bases in over 100 countries whose leaders know the U.S. as the premier overthrower of elected governments with policies displeasing to Washington and Wall Street.
As a result, the Bidenites are unleashing export controls, arrived at through administrative secrecy, that will surely invite black markets, high-tech smuggling, and retaliation to make these controls a nightmare to enforce
Provoking China to play its own cards is not smart. China, thanks to the greed of coddled and subsidized U.S. drug companies, produce much of our pharmaceuticals. These companies have left America, for example, with no production domestically of antibiotics – certainly a national security priority!
China possesses “rare earth” minerals and produces technology crucial to our own defense and high-tech industries. Its government allows U.S. factories to be built in China on the condition of a flow of latest “technology transfers.” Ask General Motors.
How are export controls – based on asserted national security grounds – going to work, other than to accelerate a new arms race? “We need to retain technological overmatch” declared Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, adding that export controls “are at the red hot center of how we best protect our democracies.” Tell that to the mass victims of the next round of viruses from China due to our minuscule weak public health programs and early detection systems, while we spend more than 2 ½ times as much as China on our military budget having had a huge head start in past years.
The New York Times reports that U.S. officials also don’t like China’s deep surveillance of its people. It is as if surveillance capitalism (See, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power by Professor Shoshana Zuboff) and the NSA’s dragnet violations of the 4th amendment are chump change.
What is also well known, but not uppermost in people’s minds, is that China, Russia, and the U.S. have embedded malware in each other’s cyber worlds that if triggered could cause catastrophe. The concern about China’s tens of billions of dollars invested in U.S. Treasury bonds should also be an issue for Mr. Biden.
Another calculation underweighted is the quiet opposition to export controls by U.S. companies that salivate over the present and future profits with Chinese trade – Apple CEO Tim Cook (who, by the way, makes $833 a minute on a 40-hour week) got a special waiver treatment from Trump, continued by Biden, for importing tens of billions of dollars annually of iPhones and computers from its Chinese contractors without tariffs.
This is another way of noting that export controls invite both raw corruption and special lobbying for waivers. They were tried by the U.S. against the old USSR, which developed elaborate circumventions.
So here we go again. Of course, certain lethal products need to be embargoed by all countries protective of their people. The U.S is expanding its so-called “entity list” cutting off hundreds of foreign companies and groups from certain U.S. technologies unless U.S. suppliers get licenses to sell goods to them. Don’t these government officials know that blacklisted companies can mutate through other corporations chartered in tax havens or dictatorships abroad?
U.S. belligerence will be met with more Chinese belligerence and vice versa as the perils and risk increase.
William Hartung (See, Center for International Policy) points out – a far brighter future would come from intense U.S. and China cooperation on the climate crises, averting pandemics, ocean preservation, and international arms accords including cybersecurity. Wage peace and pursue mutual self-interest as if our children and grandchildren matter.
Where is our Department of Peace, once advanced by Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) and former Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), when we need it?
Relations between major nations are shaped by momentum in one direction or another. Both U.S. political parties have chosen a militant path without an exit strategy – one that must please Lockheed Martin and the rest of the military-industrial complex.
The forces for muscular peace and cooperation must show there is an alternative path to secure the common interests of the two nations. That’s called robust diplomacy in this era of recurring pandemics, expanding ransomware, bloated military budgets, and interconnected economies.

July 12, 2022 Posted by | politics, USA | 1 Comment

Scotland not impressed with UK Tory government’s enthusiasm for nuclear power

THE Scottish Government has rejected UK Energy Minister Greg Hands plea to “rethink” its stance on new nuclear power stations in Scotland. The Tory minister said it’s a “great pity” Scotland has opposed the construction of any fission power plants amid the cost of living crisis and that he would be willing to sit down with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Scottish Energy Secretary Michael Matheson to hear their concerns.

It has been a longstanding Scottish Government and SNP policy to oppose nuclear, with the focus instead on the just transition to renewables.

Hands made the comments during a round table with Scottish journalists in London, where he also said there was no reason to re-assess licences for fossil fuel projects in the North Sea – despite persistent warnings from the United Nations on any more oil and gas fields being brought into production.

Scottish Net Zero Secretary Matheson has previously said safety concerns are the main reason the government has rejected any new nuclear sites, adding that “it is probably the most expensive form of electricity you can choose to produce”.

Following the closure of Hunterston B in North Ayrshire in January, due to cracks found in graphite bricks which make up the reactor core, the only functioning nuclear power station in Scotland is the Torness plant near Dunbar, East Lothian.

The UK Government has said it will not “impose” any new nuclear power on Scotland despite
plans to approve up to eight new fission reactors –by 2030, boosting overall capacity up to 24GW by 2050. But Hands has insisted the Scottish government should reconsider its stance.

When The National pointed out that nuclear power is expensive, takes a long time to be brought online and produces harmful toxic waste, Hands said: “This country has an amazing
safety record when it comes to nuclear. …………………..

. Maggie Chapman, the Scottish Greens MSP for North East Scotland, criticised his comments and said that renewables are “cheaper, cleaner and safer” than nuclear, and are easier to scale up.
She said: “Time and again the Tories have shown that they cannot be trusted with our environment. Nuclear power is neither safe nor reliable, and it leaves a toxic legacy that could last for centuries. “As Hinkley Point shows us, it is also very expensive. Any expansion would take years, and need to be paid for on top of skyrocketing bills.

 The National 11th July 2022

https://www.thenational.scot/news/20269392.uk-energy-ministers-nuclear-plants-plea-rejected-scottish-government/

July 11, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Macron’s nationalisation of EDF could have major implications for the UK

EDF has a more fundamental problem than state ownership can fix: the expense and long build times of nuclear power, compared to other technologies. “[Nationalisation] may change the capacity of the state to directly back the plans, but it doesn’t change the fact that it won’t be profitable,” argues Yves Marignac, at the négaWatt Association think-tank. “Nuclear is profoundly uneconomic. The market has said no,” adds Dr Paul Dorfman, associate fellow at the University of Sussex.

What Macron takeover means for Britain and France’s ‘nuclear renaissance’.
EDF nationalisation could have major implications for the UK’s nuclear fleet. France’s prime minister Elisabeth Borne faced boos and heckling as she set our her government’s plans to the National Assembly last week, striving for coalition after President Emmanuel Macron lost his outright majority in June.

High on her list was an announcement for France to take full ownership of its debt-laden energy giant EDF, as the weakened president tries to tackle the deepening energy and cost of living crisis
rippling across Europe amid the war in Ukraine.

Across the Channel, political turmoil was also affecting EDF. An announcement on planning approval for its Sizewell C nuclear project in Suffolk was pushed back until July 20 amid the chaos surrounding Boris Johnson’s resignation.

The company has a massive role in the UK’s energy sector, as owner of the UK’s nuclear fleet and only developer currently forging ahead with the country’s nuclear renaissance. Yet ballooning debts, outages and delays have raised doubts about its abilities on both sides of the Channel.

Will nationalisation in France be enough to fix its problems? The company’s problems stretch back beyond the turmoil in energy markets this year. Its debts of €43bn have swelled over several years amid high capital costs and spells of low electricity prices. Each year, EDF has to sell a chunk of its output at a fixed price to rivals, under state efforts to encourage competition.

Meanwhile, development of its flagship next-generation EPR reactors has been troubled. Though the first EPR power plant started running in China in 2018, one of its units has had to be shut for repairs due to cracked fuel rods. EDF says the problems have been “investigated and understood” and a solution found, with no risk posed to people or the environment. A second plant opened in Olkiluoto, Finland, in March – more than 10 years late and €8bn over budget. A third EPR in Flamanville, France, is running more than a decade behind schedule.

Meanwhile, Hinkley Point C, the new EPR power plant that EDF is building in Somerset, is now not expected to start generating until June 2027, with the pandemicdisrupting work. Sceptics of nuclear power argue EDF has a more fundamental problem than state ownership can fix: the expense and long build times of nuclear power, compared to other technologies. “[Nationalisation] may change the capacity of the state to directly back the plans, but it doesn’t change the fact that it won’t be profitable,” argues Yves Marignac, at the négaWatt Association think-tank. “Nuclear is profoundly uneconomic. The market has said no,” adds Dr Paul Dorfman, associate fellow at the University of Sussex.

 Telegraph 10th July 2022

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/10/what-macron-takeover-means-britain-frances-nuclear-renaissance/

July 11, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

France and the big nuclear energy mistake

The French government wants to expand nuclear production in France and it also wants EDF to spend big money on the rehabilitation of numerous nuclear power generating stations. It has put pressure on EDF to embrace those policies and we suspect that it could force the issue as the majority shareholder.

France plans to renationalize EDF, its giant utility. That doesn’t sound like a big deal because the government already owns 84% of EDF’s outstanding shares.

But here is how we read the story.

The French government wants to expand nuclear production in France and it also wants EDF to spend big money on the rehabilitation of numerous nuclear power generating stations. It has put pressure on EDF to embrace those policies and we suspect that it could force the issue as the majority shareholder.

But a board of directors, with a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders and other providers of capital, would have a hard time approving a strategy that looked too risky or economically uncompetitive. EDF is, after all, not a division of the ministry of defense, but rather a somewhat privatized company with the government as its biggest and controlling shareholder. At least that is the appearance it would want to give to its shareholders. If France requires more nuclear power for geopolitical or strategic reasons,
despite its seeming cost disadvantage in the marketplace, we have no quarrel with that decision.

Our issue is with the current policy—to require some non-governmental shareholders to bear national security burdens and take financial risks that really belong uniquely to the government. The French have approached the matter with admirable clarity.

 Oil Price 8th July 2022

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Europes-Big-And-Expensive-Energy-Mistake.html

July 11, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics | Leave a comment

France’s parliament could block Macron’s plan to nationalise EDF

 French parliament could block EDF reform – analyst. French government
plans to reform utility EDF face being blocked in parliament due to
bolstered opposition from far right and left-wing parties, an analyst said
this week. “You’re going to have a lot of potential blockages with the EDF
reform,” said Phuc-Vinh Nguyen of the Jacques Delors Institute think tank.
“It is one of the major issues of the five-year term, which will have a
major impact on the revival of nuclear power, renewables and energy policy.
Without an agreement, your hands are tied.” French president Emmanuel
Macron’s ruling Renaissance party lost its absolute majority in the lower
house in parliamentary elections in June. This was due to major gains by
the Eurosceptic far right party, RN, now the leading opposition group in
the National Assembly and the left-wing Nupes party, which opposes
Macron’s plan to build new nuclear reactors.

 Montel News 8th July 2022

https://www.montelnews.com/news/1334284/french-parliament-could-block-edf-reform–analyst

July 11, 2022 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

France’s government working out how to take full control of indebted nuclear company EDF

 Banks line up for French state buyout of EDF. The French government is
working with Goldman Sachs and Société Générale as it explores taking
full control of utility EDF, with a tender offer to minority shareholders
the preferred option, according to people familiar with the matter. The
government announced this week it would take back the 16 per cent of EDF it
does not already own, saying the move would bolster the energy group’s
finances as it prepares for more investment in expensive nuclear reactors
and allow France to gain even greater control on its electricity production
as Europe is rocked by an energy crisis. The government has yet to detail
how it will take full ownership of the indebted company. A public offer to
EDF shareholders, rather than trying to push a nationalization bill through
parliament, appears to be the quickest and most feasible plan, according to
three people familiar with the matter.

 FT 8th July 2022

https://www.ft.com/content/96336649-eff5-44af-850b-8996d4bde19c

July 11, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics | Leave a comment

ROBERT PRICE: Kern isn’t any more welcoming of nuclear power than it was a half-century ago

Bakersfield.com, By ROBERT PRICE For The Californian, 9 July 22 Ask most any Californian to describe nuclear energy and you’ll hear adjectives like “unreliable,” “dangerous” and “volatile……….

Nuclear (and even more unlikely, natural gas) could one day receive the same energy designation as wind farms and solar fields.

……………………… Although the EU’s tentative embrace of nuclear energy might turn some heads in the U.S., however, it’s not going to change minds in Kern County.

………………………..  Kern County was one of the first places in the U.S. to unite disparate political factions and rise up against the proliferation of nuclear power.

…………………………….. Opposition to the project coalesced into an unlikely alliance of farmers, doctors and environmentalists, the likes of which the power utilities had never before seen. Could conservatives and liberals get along? In Kern County, at the height of the 1976-78 battle against the DWP, they did.

……………………… It was the first time anywhere in America that citizens had voted down a nuclear power plant. Opposition to nuclear power had moved, as Wellock noted, from the movement’s typical base — “elements of the left wing of the Democratic Party” — to “traditionally pro-nuclear blue-collar constituencies.”

………………… If and when nuclear power ever does make a comeback in California, however, Kern County will not be the place for it. Nuclear plants need water and plenty of it, and Kern County has even less of it than it did in the mid-’70s, when opponents were citing water shortages among their list of concerns…….  https://www.bakersfield.com/columnists/robert-price/robert-price-kern-isn-t-any-more-welcoming-of-nuclear-power-than-it-was-a/article_f5b32c48-ffd5-11ec-a605-172bf1ccbf72.html

July 10, 2022 Posted by | history, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Fears environment bills could be sidelined in Tory leadership race

 Greg Clark is now being given the task of deciding on the proposed
Whitehaven coalmine in Cumbria but has not worked in the department for
years. On Thursday the government also announced it was postponing for a
second time a decision on whether to approve the £20bn Sizewell C nuclear
power plant in Suffolk. The treasury, with its new chancellor, Nadhim
Zahawi, is to decide whether to go ahead with a windfall tax on oil and gas
companies. A decision on this is due next week, and while it is a popular
measure with voters it is unknown whether Zahawi will press ahead with it,
and whether he will remove the loophole that would provide tax relief for
new oil and gas. There could also be a wait of some time for a government
response to the fracking review. The British Geological Survey has given
its report on the safety and feasibility of fracking to the Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), but the results will not
be seen until the government responds to it, with BEIS sources saying they
do not know when that will be. BEIS will also have to deal with the cost of
living and energy crises, with insulation measures and direct support for
the poorest households the most urgent priority. The energy security bill
is also coming, with an opportunity to overhaul the energy market so the
low cost of renewable electricity feeds through to consumers. Greenpeace
UK’s policy director, Doug Parr, said: “No matter how dire things may
seem in Westminster right now, when it comes to the climate crisis things
risk getting much worse without immediate action. However, delays to
decisions on whether or not to backtrack on coal and build a new mine, or
waste untold time and money on a new nuclear power station that will only
distract from genuine energy solutions, could be taken as positive, if they
were set to be given the green light as rumours suggest. “This
parliamentary reset must deliver a new prime minister that will take bolder
action on climate and nature. They must invest in real solutions like
cheap, clean, homegrown renewables and fixing the vast number of cold,
damp, energy-wasting homes. If not, we may lose even more time and find
ourselves in a far worse position than we already are.”

 Guardian 9th July 2022

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/09/fears-environment-bills-could-sidelined-tory-leadership-race

July 10, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

America’s $1.4 Trillion So-Called “National Security” Budget Makes Us Less Safe—Not More

America and the world would be far safer places if this outrageous spending was drastically cut and those funds redirected to “moral” investments in people, society, and planetary health—not war and weapons.

Common Dreams WILLIAM HARTUNG, July 7, 2022 by TomDispatch

This March, when the Biden administration presented a staggering $813 billion proposal for “national defense,” it was hard to imagine a budget that could go significantly higher or be more generous to the denizens of the military-industrial complex. After all, that request represented far more than peak spending in the Korean or Vietnam War years, and well over $100 billion more than at the height of the Cold War. 

It was, in fact, an astonishing figure by any measure — more than two-and-a-half times what China spends; more, in fact, than (and hold your hats for this one!) the national security budgets of the next nine countries, including China and Russia, combined. And yet the weapons industry and hawks in Congress are now demanding that even more be spent. 

In recent National Defense Authorization Act proposals, which always set a marker for what Congress is willing to fork over to the Pentagon, the Senate and House Armed Services Committees both voted to increase the 2023 budget yet again — by $45 billion in the case of the Senate and $37 billion for the House. The final figure won’t be determined until later this year, but Congress is likely to add tens of billions of dollars more than even the Biden administration wanted to what will most likely be a record for the Pentagon’s already bloated budget.

This lust for yet more weapons spending is especially misguided at a time when a never-ending pandemic, growing heat waves and other depredations of climate change, and racial and economic injustice are devastating the lives of millions of Americans.  Make no mistake about it: the greatest risks to our safety and our future are non-military in nature, with the exception, of course, of the threat of nuclear war, which could increase if the current budget goes through as planned.

But as TomDispatch readers know, the Pentagon is just one element in an ever more costly American national security state.  Adding other military, intelligence, and internal-security expenditures to the Pentagon’s budget brings the total upcoming “national security” budget to a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion. And note that, in June 2021, the last time my colleague Mandy Smithberger and I added up such costs to the taxpayer, that figure was almost $1.3 trillion, so the trend is obvious.

To understand how these vast sums are spent year after year, let’s take a quick tour of America’s national security budget, top to bottom.

The Pentagon’s proposed “base” budget, which includes all of its routine expenses from personnel to weapons to the costs of operating and maintaining a 1.3 million member military force, came in at $773 billion for 2023, more than $30 billion above that of 2022. Such an increase alone is three times the discretionary budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and more than three times the total allocation for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

In all, the Pentagon consumes nearly half of the discretionary budget of the whole federal government, a figure that’s come down slightly in recent years thanks to the Biden administration’s increased investment in civilian activities. That still means, however, that almost anything the government wants to do other than preparing for or waging war involves a scramble for funding, while the Department of Defense gets virtually unlimited financial support.

And keep in mind that the proposed Biden increase in Pentagon spending comes despite the ending of 20 years of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, a move that should have meant significant reductions in the department’s budget.  Perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn, however, that, in the wake of the Afghan disaster, the military establishment and hawks in Congress quickly shifted gears to touting — and exaggerating — challenges posed by China, Russia, and inflation as reasons for absorbing the potential savings from the Afghan War and pressing the Pentagon budget ever higher.

It’s worth looking at what America stands to receive for its $773 billion — or about $2,000 per taxpayer, according to an analysis by the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. More than half of that amount goes to giant weapons contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, along with thousands of smaller arms-making firms.

The most concerning part of the new budget proposal, however, may be the administration’s support for a three-decades long, $1.7-trillion plan to build a new generation of nuclear-armed missiles (as well, of course, as new warheads to go with them), bombers, and submarines. As the organization Global Zero has pointed out, the United States could dissuade any country from launching an atomic attack against it with far fewer weapons than are contained in its current nuclear arsenal.  There’s simply no need for a costly — and risky — nuclear weapons “modernization” plan. Sadly, it’s guaranteed to help fuel a continuing global nuclear arms race, while entrenching nuclear weapons as a mainstay of national security policy for decades to come. (Wouldn’t those decades be so much better spent working to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether?) 

The riskiest weapon in that nuclear plan is a new land-based, intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).  As former Secretary of Defense William Perry once explained, ICBMs are among “the most dangerous weapons in the world” because a president warned of a nuclear attack would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch them, increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war based on a false alarm. Not only is a new ICBM unnecessary, but the existing ones should be retired as well, as a way of reducing the potential for a world-ending nuclear conflagration……………………..

The Nuclear Budget

The average taxpayer no doubt assumes that a government agency called the Department of Energy (DOE) would be primarily concerned with developing new sources of energy, including ones that would reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels to help rein in the ravages of climate change.  Unfortunately, that assumption couldn’t be less true.

Instead of spending the bulk of its time and money on energy research and development, more than 40% of the Department of Energy’s budget for 2023 is slated to support the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which manages the country’s nuclear weapons program, principally by maintaining and developing nuclear warheads.  Work on other military activities like reactors for nuclear submarines pushes the defense share of the DOE budget even higher. The NNSA spreads its work across the country, with major locations in California, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Its proposed 2023 budget for nuclear-weapons activities is $16.5 billion, part of a budget for defense-related projects of $29.8 billion……………………………

Our Misguided Security Budget

Spending $1.4 trillion to address a narrowly defined concept of national security should be considered budgetary malpractice on a scale so grand as to be almost unimaginable — especially at a time when the greatest risks to the safety of Americans and the rest of the world are not military in nature. After all, the Covid pandemic has already taken the lives of more than one million Americans, while the fires, floods, and heat waves caused by climate change have impacted tens of millions more. 

Yet the administration’s proposed allocation of $45 billion to address climate change in the 2023 budget would be less than 6% of the Pentagon’s proposed budget of $773 billion………………………………..  https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/07/07/americas-14-trillion-so-called-national-security-budget-makes-us-less-safe-not-more

July 7, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nationalising EDF is no cure-all for France’s nuclear industry troubles

 The French state has said it will fully nationalise EDF, the debt-laden utility that runs the nation’s nuclear power plants and which the government has so far struggled to restructure. It has not said whether it
will buy out minority shareholders on the market or take control by law.

But however it is nationalised, it doesn’t guarantee a fix for EDF’s mountain of debt or its corroding reactors and it won’t reduce the cost of shielding consumers from sky-high energy prices.

Analysts say the government’s main goal may be to secure a freehand in running a business that has a roughly 80% share of the French electricity market, once it is delisted and the state no longer has to answer to any other shareholders.


About half of EDF’s 56 nuclear reactors in France are now offline, in part due to corrosion issues. EDF has repeatedly cut its planned nuclear output for 2022, just as Europe scrambles to find alternative energy sources as Russian gas supplies dwindle.

As well as problems with old reactors, it is also running years late and billions of euros above budget in building a new-generation of reactors in France and Britain, raising questions about whether it has to fix fundamental design faults. Furthermore, EDF has been hobbled by a regulated tariff system, known as Arenh, forcing it to sell 100 terawatt/hours (TWh) of nuclear generation to power retailers and large
consumers at 42 euros/MWh, which is well below market levels.

 Reuters 7th Aug 2022

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/why-french-plan-take-full-control-edf-is-no-cure-all-2022-07-07/?rpc=401&

July 7, 2022 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

With EDF’s parlous finances and France nationalising EDF – decision on Britain’s planned Sizewell C nuclear station has been delayed

A decision on a new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk has been
delayed again by the government. French energy company EDF wants to build
Sizewell C, a £20 billion two-reactor nuclear plant, next to Sizewell B. A
decision on Sizewell C was expected today (7 July), but it has been pushed
back to 20 July at the latest. Paul Scully MP said: “I have decided to set
a new deadline of no later than 20 July 2022 for deciding this application.
This is to ensure there is sufficient time to allow the Secretary of State
to consider the proposal.”

On Wednesday, the French government announced
the state was taking full control of EDF, in a drive to boost its domestic
nuclear expansion.

Reacting to the delay, Alison Downes, of campaign group
Stop Sizewell C, said it would have been farcical if a decision on Sizewell
C had been made today, following the news from Paris. She added: “We also
hope that announcements of EDF’s re-nationalisation have given ministers
pause, especially when EDF’s parlous finances are at least in part down to
their disastrous track record at building the type of reactors proposed for
Sizewell C.”

 ITV 7th July 2022

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022-07-07/decision-on-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-delayed-again-by-government

July 7, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

France to Nationalize Debt-Laden EDF as Energy Crisis Mounts

 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-06/french-premier-says-state-wants-to-own-100-of-edf By Francois De Beaupuy, Ania Nussbaum, and William Horobin July 7, 2022

  • Premier says EDF full control needed for energy sovereignty
  • France to invest in new nuclear plants to fight climate change
Electricity pylons and power lines near a nuclear power plant operated by Electricite de France SA in Normandy, France, on Monday.
Electricity pylons and power lines near a nuclear power plant operated by Electricite de France SA in Normandy, France, on Monday.Photographer: Nathan Laine/Bloomberg

The French government will nationalize its financially struggling nuclear giant Electricite de France SA to help it ride out Europe’s worst energy crisis in a generation and invest in new atomic plants.

“The climate emergency requires strong, radical decisions,” Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne said during a policy speech in parliament in Paris on Wednesday. “We need to have full control of the production and our energy future. We must ensure our sovereignty faced with the consequences of the war and the colossal challenges ahead.”

Borne didn’t provide specific details of the government’s plans, beyond saying the state will raise its stake in EDF to 100% from 84% currently. No decision has been made at this stage on the modalities of the operation, a spokesman for the finance ministry said. 

EDF shares jumped on Borne’s announcement and closed 15% higher in Paris after having been down sharply prior to her comments. The utility’s debt also gained

…………………………. EDF has been grappling in recent years with various issues at its aging fleet of reactors and cost overruns when building new ones. Its problems are being exacerbated by a government-imposed cap on electricity prices and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which is making it more expensive for the company to cover its own electricity-output shortfall.

A positive exit catalyst for minority shareholders in EDF, Europe’s largest nuclear power producer, comes with confirmation that France will acquire the 16% stake not already owned and nationalize the company. 

……………….. The CGT and FO labor unions welcomed the plan for nationalization, but also expressed concern that the government could subsequently revive a plan to “dismantle” the utility.

………………. A nationalization of EDF may reassure creditors that are concerned about the utility’s net financial debt, which stood at 43 billion euros at the end of last year and is set to climb even higher despite a 3.2-billion euro capital increase in April. 

Credit-rating firms, which downgraded the utility in February, warned of further potential cuts as the company is grappling with repairs at some of its atomic power stations and cost overruns at nuclear plants under construction in France and the UK.   

July 7, 2022 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Congress poised to shoot down Biden’s nuclear rollback

The White House wants to cancel a nuclear cruise missile, but Democrats have joined Republicans to try to save it.

Politico, By LAWRENCE UKENYE and CONNOR O’BRIEN, 07/06/2022 ,

Progressives were already disappointed with President Joe Biden’s plans for the nation’s nuclear arsenal. Now they’re poised to lose one of the few things about the White House’s blueprint that they liked.

In recent weeks, Democrats have joined Republicans in adding money back into the Pentagon budget to continue developing a sea-launched nuclear cruise missile that former President Donald Trump initiated in 2018. Biden proposed canceling the missile, which arms control advocates say is redundant, costly and potentially destabilizing……………………..

The Pentagon’s still-classified Nuclear Posture Review, which lays out a long-term roadmap for the nuclear arsenal, spurred the decision to zero out funding for the missile in Biden’s most recent budget. The public split between top civilians and military commanders amounted to a “green light” for Democrats to hedge on the program, according to Tom Collina, policy director at Ploughshares Fund.

…………………… The situation marks a retreat from the campaign pledges of then-candidate Biden, who long advocated for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, only to turn around and dedicate tens of billions of dollars to the modernization of all three legs of the triad for two years in a row. Arms control advocates also called on him to establish a “no first use” policy and cancel two weapons added on by the Trump administration: the cruise missile and a low-yield submarine-launched missile, which has already entered the fleet.

Biden’s nuclear plans, outlined in a brief summary released in March, omit a “no first use” policy. The low-yield warhead introduced during the Trump years remains a part of the arsenal.

As for the cruise missile, now that both the House and Senate Armed Services committees have authorized funding, albeit with differing conditions, Congress will likely send Biden a compromise defense policy bill this year that foils his plan to cancel the program.

A spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said in a statement that the administration “stands by the President’s budget submission, which canceled the SLCM-N,” which refers to the sea-launched cruise missile-nuclear. The spokesperson noted the decision to kill the missile “was based on the findings and recommendations” of the Nuclear Posture Review.

Biden’s fiscal 2023 defense budget proposes spending $50.9 billion on nuclear weapons programs across the Defense and Energy Departments, while also attempting to cancel the SLCM and retire the aging inventory of B83 gravity bombs. The latter system is also in play in defense talks.

Senate Armed Services voted to place limits on the retirement of the B83 by requiring a study on striking hardened and deeply buried targets before any of the bombs could be scrapped.

Both versions of the National Defense Authorization Act greenlight $25 million for the Navy’s research and development efforts on the cruise missile and another $20 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration to continue research on the W80-4 warhead to be used on the missile. But the House version restricts a portion of the $45 million from being spent until the Navy and NNSA deliver several reports, including analyses outlining the cost of the warhead and delivery system as well as the possible limitations of the vessels that carry the missile………………………………….

The debate won’t end with the Armed Services Committees, as Congress must still appropriate money to continue the program.

Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee sided with Biden and allocated no money for the missile or its warhead in their versions of annual defense and energy spending bills. But Armed Services’ action is likely to put pressure on appropriators in their talks over a spending compromise………………….  https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/06/congress-biden-nuclear-rollback-00044344
—

July 7, 2022 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Russian-speakers will be second-class citizens unless they give up their language’: A view on Ukraine’s future from Donbass.

, RT interviews a journalist living in the Donetsk People’s Republic since 2014, During his 2019 election campaign, Ukraine’s current President Volodymyr Zelensky constantly repeated that his mission was to unite the country and breach the ideological gap between the EU-leaning West and the Russian-speaking East.

This was the division that resulted in the declaration of independence by the Donbass republics, in 2014.

However, but the differences are so deep that even the present, and obvious, threat to the state’s territorial integrity has failed to fully unite Ukrainians. One of the principal issues is language, those in the West prefer to use Ukrainian and the east is mostly Russian speaking. 

There is a historical reason, of course. Modern Ukraine was created – by the Soviet Union – as a result of sticking various territories together. Thus, parts of the south-west came from Hungary and Romania, a large chunk of the West is historically Polish land and places like Odessa and Kharkov have long been Russian. 

Indeed, many soldiers from the western regions don’t want to risk their lives fighting in the East, but would happily defend their home regions.

RT spoke with Vladislav Ugolny, a journalist and expert on the history of Novorossiya, about the attitude of one group in Ukrainian society towards the other. We also asked Vladislav if there is any hope for reconciliation. 

[Ed. Author gives the complicated history of the various groups that make up Ukraine]  ………………….

The nationalism in eastern Ukraine is more militaristic and employs Third Reich aesthetics, similar to many ultra-right groups in Western Europe and Russia for that matter………………..

The southeast is very diverse. You have Odessa and Kharkov on the one hand, where there is still significant potential for separatism. Then there is Zaporozhe, where the separatist mindset is present but not as prevalent. This is why the pro-Russian civil-military administrations have been successful in places like Melitopol for example. Dnepropetrovsk, on the other hand, has always been the domain of Ukrainian nationalism.  ……………………..

The collective Lviv will always maintain that as long as you speak Russian, you’re an “agent of the enemy,” that is, an agent of Russia – even despite the fact that Russian-speaking ‘skhidnyaks’ are bearing the brunt of the combat. All that common people from the southeast can hope for in the Ukrainian statehood project is to die for it. The only party that benefits from this situation in the southeast is the ‘big money,’ that is, those who own the means of production. And, as I’ve said, they will never have any other choice but to support Ukrainian nationalism. https://www.rt.com/russia/558059-second-class-citizens-language/

July 4, 2022 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

UK govt scratching for money for new nuclear, hires Barclays to search for investors.

UK ministers tap Barclays to secure investment for new nuclear plant.  https://www.ft.com/content/4adac154-2a6d-4f13-95b1-a1b8592aa1fe

Search for 60% of facility’s financing comes as government aims to boost domestic energy supply   Nathalie Thomas in Edinburgh and Jim Pickard in London . 

UK ministers have hired Barclays to lead a search for investors willing to back a large new nuclear power plant at Sizewell on England’s east coast as part of a push to secure more domestic energy sources, according to four people familiar with the appointment. The government is keen to forge ahead with a 3.2 gigawatt plant, capable of generating electricity for 6mn homes, at Sizewell in Suffolk as part of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s aim to build eight nuclear reactors by 2030.

Ministers have drawn up plans with Sizewell’s promoter, French state-backed EDF Energy, for a new company to replace the current joint venture that has been working on the Suffolk plant. Both the government and EDF would each take a 20 per cent stake in the new company. Bankers at Barclays have been tasked with finding investors to cover the remaining 60 per cent, according to people familiar with the plans.

The revised structure would force out the Chinese state-backed nuclear company CGN from Sizewell C. CGN owns 20 per cent of the current joint venture, with EDF holding the remaining 80 per cent. But UK ministers want to avoid further Chinese involvement in British nuclear facilities, given a deterioration in diplomatic relations between London and Beijing in recent years. CGN is already funding a third of the cost of the Hinkley Point C plant that is under construction in Somerset and upon which Sizewell C is based.

But nuclear industry experts say the government will have to tread carefully as CGN’s expertise will remain crucial to delivering Hinkley Point C. The company’s Taishan nuclear power plant in southern China was the first in the world to operate using a Franco-German European Pressurised Reactor technology that is being installed at Hinkley, and more than 100 Chinese engineers have been at work on the Somerset facility. Hinkley Point C is already running years behind schedule and billions over budget. EDF said in May that the plant’s estimated construction budget had ballooned by a further £3bn to between £25bn and £26bn, compared with an estimate of £18bn when it received the go-ahead in 2016. The first reactor is not expected to start generating electricity until June 2027.

July 2, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »