nuclear-news

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

Biden team weighs killing Trump’s new nuclear weapons


Biden team weighs killing Trump’s new nuclear weapons

Officials are considering canceling weapons that were backed by the last administration.  By BRYAN BENDER POLITICO , 01/12/2022

The Biden administration is considering killing off several nuclear weapons programs that were greenlit by the Trump White House as an internal debate over the nation’s atomic arsenal enters its final phase.

According to nine current and former officials with knowledge of the deliberations, the Nuclear Posture Review, which is expected to be completed as early as next month, is not expected to make major changes to nuclear policy. Nor is it likely to recommend deep cuts to multibillion-dollar plans to build new intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-armed submarines and stealth bombers, they said.

But national security officials are debating whether to jettison a new nuclear-armed cruise missile now in the research phase, retire a Cold War-era thermonuclear bomb, and possibly even remove a new “low-yield” warhead that the previous administration deployed on submarines, the current and former officials said. Most spoke on condition they not be identified in order to discuss internal deliberations and private conversations.

Such changes would fall short of the overhaul of nuclear policy and programs that President Joe Biden has long argued would help blunt a nuclear arms race, namely a declaration that the United States would not be the first to strike an adversary using atomic weapons.

Yet halting the Trump-era “add-ons,” as they are called, are considered the most likely cuts if Biden wants to reverse the previous administration’s elevation of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy, due to resistance from military leaders to big changes as Russia and China build up their arsenals……………………………………………….

Even for the relatively modest changes to the weapons portfolio being considered, there is likely to be strong resistance on the Hill and inside the Pentagon.  https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/12/biden-trump-nuclear-weapons-526976

January 13, 2022 Posted by | politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The European Union will need to invest 500 billion euros ($568 billion) in new generation nuclear power stations!

 France24 9th Jan 2022

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220109-europe-nuclear-plants-need-500-bn-euro-investment-by-2050-eu-commissioner

The European Union will need to invest 500 billion euros ($568 billion) in new generation nuclear power stations from now until 2050, the bloc’s internal market commissioner said in an interview published at the weekend.

“Existing nuclear plants alone will need 50 billion euros of investment from now until 2030. And new generation ones will need 500 billion!” Thierry Breton told the Journal du Dimanche newspaper. Breton also argued that an EU plan to label energy from nuclear power and natural gas as “green” sources for investment was a vital step towards attracting that capital. The EU is consulting its member states on that proposal, with internal disagreement on whether the power sources truly qualify as sustainable options.

 France24 9th Jan 2022

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220109-europe-nuclear-plants-need-500-bn-euro-investment-by-2050-eu-commissioner

January 11, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

To bankroll the failing nuclear industry, the UK government will push thousands into fuel poverty, with its Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Bad for fuel poverty, bad for climate action: why MPs should vote against the Nuclear Energy Bill on Monday.

Controversial legislation is being rushed through parliament which will transfer billions of pounds onto
individual consumers, whilst affording them no protection from the spiralling construction costs of nuclear power. Introduced at the end of October when attention was rightly focused on COP26, the Bill has received little attention.

Yet it will have a profound impact on millions of families forced to foot the bill and will push thousands more into fuel poverty. So why is the government forcing more families into fuel poverty?

To bankroll a failing industry. With all 15 British nuclear power plants set to be closed by 2030, funding for eight new ones is in a state of collapse. Only one plant – Hinkley Point C – is under construction and
this is running ten years late and £4.5 billion over budget. The Bill enables energy companies to use a regulated asset base (RAB) model to transfer the construction costs – and financial risks – onto consumers
and start making a profit even before the plants generate any electricity.

 Labour Outlook 9th Jan 2022

Bad for fuel poverty, bad for climate action: why MPs should vote against the Nuclear Energy Bill on Monday

January 10, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

As nuclear power’s failures become more apparent, government and media enthusiastically promote it.

Why is support for nuclear power noisiest just as its failures become most clear?  The UK government and mainstream media agree we need nuclear to avoid the worst climate change. They’re wrong – so why aren’t we hearing that? Open Democracy, Andrew Stirling, Phil Johnstone, 9 January 2022, 

”…………………….This Green Party case is particularly noteworthy, since it is (strangely given underlying patterns of public concern on nuclear issues), the only organised political force in England collectively offering a consistently sceptical position about nuclear power in Parliament. With the longstanding Green grounding on this issue so strong over a half-century, it is especially strange that this development should come at a time when – at least for the Greens – the argument is more over than it has ever been.

What remains particularly striking about all the instances we cite is that none engage substantively with the real-world performance of nuclear power as it is. Despite vivid rhetorics around needs for ‘science-based’ policy – and occasionally colourful fear-mongering about intermittency ‘putting the lights out’ – none of these prolific voices address (let alone refute) the worldwide substantive picture that shows nuclear power overwhelmingly to be slower, less effective and more expensive at tackling climate disruption than are renewable and storage alternatives.

UK government policy

Despite the surface commitment, we see this trend in UK government energy policy too. Dig into more specialist civil service policy papers and you find spiralling prices and little in the way of an energy-related case for nuclear power. But – in a remarkable departure from the normally diligent attention to costs – the most recent energy white paper ignored all that boring economic detail. Official UK nuclear attachments are treated as an unquestionable given.

So, it might be understood why deep-rooted nuclear interests are seeking to hide these inconvenient facts behind pretty pictures of the West Highlands. But why is the media so keen to help, squirrelling realities away from view behind tales of repentant environmentalists? Why is so much new noise building up behind nuclear power in formerly critical political parties, just when the case has grown weaker than ever?

Profound issues are raised here, not only concerning the cost and speed of climate action, but about the independence and professionalism of the UK media and the health of British democracy as a whole. Whichever opinion we each take on nuclear issues – and whatever the undoubted uncertainties and ambiguities – we should all care very deeply about this. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/why-is-support-for-nuclear-power-noisiest-just-as-its-failures-become-most-clear/

January 10, 2022 Posted by | media, politics, UK | Leave a comment

New generation European nuclear power will need investment of 500 billion euros by 2030. Existing plants will require 50 billion.

New generation European nuclear power plants will require an investment of "500 billion [euros] by 2050," said in an interview in the Journal du dimanche (JDD) dated January 9 the European Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry Breton , which considers “crucial” to open the green labeling to nuclear power as part of the energy transition.

"Existing nuclear power plants alone will require 50 billion euros of investment by 2030. And 500 billion by 2050 for new generation ones! », Affirms the French commissioner.

European Commission unveiled a green labeling project for nuclear and gas power plants, which aims to facilitate the financing of installations contributing to the fight against climate change..........

Nuclear power is the subject of heated debates between the Twenty-Seven, a dozen countries - France in the lead - actively promoting nuclear power in the face of States very reluctant to the civilian atom, such as Germany or Austria. Le Monde 9th Jan 2022

 https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2022/01/09/nucleaire-nouvelle-generation-l-ue-devra-investir-500-milliards-d-ici-a-2050-estime-thierry-breton_6108727_3234.html

January 10, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear Energy Financing Bill – a poisoned chalice for the UK public.

 The UK & Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) is supporting calls to MPs to reject the Nuclear Energy Financing Bill when it comes back to the House of Commons for its Report Stage reading next Monday (10th January). The Chair of the NFLA Steering Committee, Councillor David
Blackburn, called the bill a ‘poisoned chalice’ for the British public:

“This bill will mean that consumers will ultimately pay the cost of developing any new ultra-expensive nuclear power plants through a surcharge applied to customers’ electricity bills. “Civil nuclear projects are
notorious for being delivered massively above budget and enormously behind time.

Consequently, there are only two main players in the nuclear market, and these have had their financial fingers burned. “The government wants to sweeten the pill by introducing a new method of financing nuclear plants called the Regulated Asset Base. This will mean that customers pay for cost
overruns and delays, and even the cost of abortive projects, whilst the developer and operator reap all of the rewards.”

 NFLA 7th Jan 2022

NFLA says Nuclear Tax is a ‘poisoned chalice’ for public

 The Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill aims to provide for a new model for
financing new nuclear power stations in the UK. This briefing covers the
Bill’s progress through Parliament, through second reading and committee
stage.

 House of Commons Library 7th Feb 2022

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill 2021-22

January 10, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

What ratepayers should know about the Plant Vogtle expansion

What ratepayers should know about the Plant Vogtle expansion January 6, 2022 By: Mary Landers   , The Current

If you feel like you keep reading the same story about the expansion of Plant Vogtle, the only new nuclear power under construction in the U.S., you’re not exactly wrong.

Reactors No. 3 and 4 at Vogtle on the banks of the Savannah River near Waynesboro are more than five years overdue and $14 billion over budget. And that’s just a broad outline.

For more details, and for a take that’s sympathetic to consumers bearing these costs, read Georgia Conservation Voters‘ 32-page report “Ratepayer Robbery — The True Cost of Plant Vogtle.”

It includes timelines, data on expenses, and records of key decisions. The report reminds Georgia Power residential customers that they’ve been paying for Vogtle financing on their monthly bills for 10 years while industrial customers are exempt. It also spells out how Vogtle’s cost overruns actually increase Georgia Power’s profit. Footnotes link to news articles, and government and nonprofit documents.

“Plant Vogtle is a monumental example of failed leadership, oversight and lack of forethought,” said GCV Executive Director Brionté McCorkle. “What started out as an overpriced $14 billion project has ballooned into more than $30 billion, and that doesn’t take into account the future costs of completing the units.”

The report highlights the role of the Georgia Public Service Commission, an elected five-member panel, in moving the project forward. In a go/no go review of the project in 2017 after building contractor Westinghouse went bankrupt, expert witnesses and the PSC staff cautioned it wasn’t cost effective to continue. But the PSC voted to continue construction…………..

McCorkle is not against finishing the project, she said, but she is concerned about who will pay to finish it, residential ratepayers or Georgia Power shareholders.

“The responsible thing to do is to reassess the whole situation and reassess who’s picking up the tab for this and why customers are on the hook for paying for this energy,” she said.

Georgia Power, which owns 45.7% of the Vogtle expansion project, “has earned over $6 billion just from the delays of their own project,” the report states.

“They’re profiting, they’re making sky-high profits, while individual ratepayers are struggling to keep the lights on throughout a pandemic, people are losing family members,” McCorkle said. “And the squeeze is being felt everywhere. And our commissioners have a responsibility to do something about that.”

“Ratepayer Robbery — The True Cost of Plant Vogtle” concludes with a list of suggested actions. They are:

  1. The Georgia Public Service Commission should disallow Georgia Power from placing all of
    these nuclear construction costs onto our bills and share rate increases more fully between
    customer classes.
  2. Voters should hold Commissioners accountable by ejecting them from their seats and electing pro-consumer candidates that commit to transparency.
  3. The Georgia State legislature should fully fund an independent Consumer Utility Counsel (CUC).
  4. The Georgia State legislature should create an independent study commission to document lessons learned.Read the entire report at https://www.scribd.com/document/550992905/Ratepayer-Robbery-The-True-Cost-of-Plant-Vogtle
  6. https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/01/06/what-ratepayers-should-know-about-the-plant-vogtle-expansion?fbclid=IwAR3zdntXhPLdXrqewGAw26Bt1FwsNXQSuLWXhN2cEvA3zJEyZyN5EZzgmyA

January 10, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Hunterston nuclear power workers need a just transition to sustainable work. No more subsidies to the nuclear industry.

 Workers are key to a just transition at the Hunterston nuclear plant,
which retires today, according to the Scottish Greens.

The nuclear sectorbhas used the occasion to call for more subsidies, despite the UK Government
already subsidising the sector and proposing to charge bill payers upfront
to pay for nuclear power stations that haven’t even been built yet, like
at Hinkley Point.

Commenting, Scottish Greens energy spokesperson Mark
Ruskell said: “Respect and thanks must go to the workers at Hunterston
who have kept our lights on over the decades and those who will continue
the important work of de-commissioning. “These communities deserve a just
transition away from an energy source that is expensive and neither clean
nor sustainable. The vast subsidies involved would be better spent
investing in modern renewable energy solutions that provide a long-term
future for workers and our planet.”

 Scottish Greens 7th Jan 2021

https://greens.scot/news/greens-workers-key-to-hunterston-transition

January 10, 2022 Posted by | employment, politics, renewable, UK | Leave a comment

European citizens divided over nuclear energy 

European citizens divided over nuclear energy – What Greeks believe, https://greekcitytimes.com/2022/01/07/european-citizens-nuclear-energy/A “tie” prevails in the European public opinion for the production of energy through nuclear power plants, as recorded by the latest relevant Eurobarometer survey.

The differences, however, are large from country to country, with the weight of “NO” prevailing in the EU’s largest population, Germany, where 69% are against this form of energy.

It is also striking that in France, where about 70% of energy is produced in individual plants, the disapproval rate is quite high at 45%.

This number is particularly important if one takes into account that at this time the French government, with the personal mobilisation of President Emmanuel Macron, seeks to classify nuclear energy in “environmentally friendly” technologies.

This issue has provoked several reactions, both from some countries and from political forces, with the European Greens declaring a few days ago that they are considering appealing to the European Court of Justice against the Commission for its proposal.

Austrian Environment Minister Leonore Gewessler had hinted at something similar, with experts in European law questioning whether such an appeal could be justified.

Overall in Europe and with a sample of around 27,000 respondents the acceptance and rejection rates were exactly the same, with 46%.

3% had no opinion and 5% did not answer.

Opinions on solar (92%) and wind energy (87%) are overwhelmingly positive.

The countries with the highest percentages of negative opinion after Germany and Austria (66%) included Greece and Luxembourg.

Citizens are divided in Belgium, Denmark, Spain and Portugal, where YES or NO does not prevail.

High levels of support were recorded where nuclear power is already being used – the Czech Republic with 79%, Bulgaria with 69%, Poland with 60%, as well as in Finland where a new nuclear reactor has recently started operating. The survey also recorded slightly higher acceptance rates among men surveyed than women.

January 10, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE, public opinion | Leave a comment

Government Wants YOU to Pay for New Nuclear

Thanks to CND for this information: The government is trying to force through controversial new legislation which will make consumers bankroll the nuclear power industry, whilst giving them no protection from spiralling costs. This will force thousands more families into fuel poverty.  The electricity generated from nuclear power is double the costs of renewables. Nuclear […]

Government Want YOU to Pay for New Nuclear — RADIATION FREE LAKELAND (UK) ON  BY MARIANNEWILDART

The government is trying to force through controversial new legislation which will make consumers bankroll the nuclear power industry, whilst giving them no protection from spiralling costs. This will force thousands more families into fuel poverty.  The electricity generated from nuclear power is double the costs of renewables. Nuclear is hampered by generic design flaws, long delays and safety risks. It’s dangerous to people and planet. To meet Britain’s 2050 net zero goals, instead of forcing consumers to bankroll a failed industry, the government should be investing more in renewables.

Contact your MP, urging them to vote against the Bill on Monday 10th January. See briefing CND is sending to MPs.

We are writing now  to urge you to vote against the Nuclear Energy (Finance) Bill which has its final reading in the House of Commons on Monday 10 January.

This controversial new legislation will force consumers to bankroll the nuclear power industry, whilst giving them no protection from spiralling costs. This will force thousands more families into fuel poverty.

The Bill will enable energy companies to charge consumers to construct and operate new nuclear power plants under a regulated asset base (RAB) funding model. Evidence shows that under such models, costs for nuclear power stations abandoned during construction as well as cost over-runs of $2.1 billion are all being passed on to consumers. Richard Hall, Chief Energy Economist at Citizens Advice, who gave evidence to the parliamentary Committee examining the Bill, argues ‘…consumers do not have any control over the risk. Essentially, they are the passive recipient of the risks.’

The electricity generated from nuclear power is twice the price of renewables. Nuclear is hampered by generic design flaws, long delays and safety risks. It’s dangerous to people and planet. To meet Britain’s 2050 net zero goals, instead of forcing consumers to bankroll this costly, inefficient and dangerous form of power generation, the government should be investing in renewables and making homes energy-efficient to reduce carbon emissions as well as energy bills.


As you know there is no “away” for nuclear wastes and the government are presently spending eyewatering amounts of money on public relations largely in Cumbria to try and persuade the County to bury heat generating nuclear wastes under our precious and irreplacable land and sea.  The reason? Not for safety’s sake but in order to clear the decks for more nuclear crapola for which we all must pay time and time again in every way possible?

We urge you to vote against this Bill. 
with many thanks

Marianne Birkby on behalf of
Radiation Free Lakeland

January 8, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK Parliament to debate Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill on 10 January – may transfer billions of new nuclear costs to consumers

The Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill has its final reading in Parliament on Monday 10 January. If passed, it will change the way the nuclear power industry is financed, transferring billions of pounds onto individual
consumers, whilst affording them no protection from spiralling costs. This will force thousands more families into fuel poverty. CND is urging all Members of Parliament to vote against this legislation.

 CND Briefing 6th Jan 2022

Click to access Nuclear-energy-bill-FOR-MPs.pdf

January 8, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

European Commission’s divisive plan to label nuclear power ”green”, revealed on the sly?

“Short of digging an actual hole, the European Commission couldn’t have tried harder to bury this proposal”

” we get a document written behind closed doors and published on New Year’s Eve,”

EU labels nuclear power ‘green’, Germany calls it dangerous, Sydney Morning Herald, By John Chalmers, January 4, 2022  Brussels: The German government has condemned nuclear energy as dangerous, slamming European Union proposals that would let the technology remain part of the bloc’s plans for a climate-friendly future.

Germany is on course to switch off its remaining three nuclear power plants at the end of this year and phase out coal by 2030, whereas its neighbour France aims to modernise existing nuclear reactors and build new ones to meet its future energy needs. Berlin plans to rely heavily on natural gas until it can be replaced by non-polluting sources for energy.

The opposing paths taken by two of the EU’s biggest economies have resulted in an awkward situation for the bloc’s Executive Commission.

“We consider nuclear technology to be dangerous,” German government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit told reporters in Berlin, noting that the question of what to do with radioactive waste that will last for thousands of generations remains unresolved.

Hebestreit added that Germany “expressly rejects” the EU’s assessment of atomic energy, has repeatedly stated this position towards the commission and is now considering next steps.

The European Union has rejected accusations that it waited until New Year’s Eve to publish the divisive proposals to allow some natural gas and nuclear energy projects to be labelled as sustainable, saying “we weren’t trying to do it on the sly”.

The commission’s decision to include gas and nuclear investments in the European Union’s “sustainable finance taxonomy” rules was circulated in a draft proposal late on December 31 and leaked to some media organisations.

“Short of digging an actual hole, the European Commission couldn’t have tried harder to bury this proposal,” said Henry Eviston, spokesman on sustainable finance at the European Policy Office of the environmental group WWF.

“When the question was whether renewables are green, the commission gave citizens three chances to provide their opinion. For fossil gas and nuclear, we get a document written behind closed doors and published on New Year’s Eve,” he said in an online posting………………………………….

The European Commission will now collect comments to its draft until January 12 and hopes to adopt a final text by the end of the month. After that, the text can be discussed with EU governments and Parliament for up to six months. But it is unlikely to be rejected because that would require 20 of the 27 EU countries, representing 65 per cent of EU citizens, to say “no”.

The aim of the agreement is to send a signal to private investors as to what the EU considers acceptably “green” and stop greenwashing, whereby companies or investors overstate their eco-friendly credentials. The deal will also set limits on what governments can use EU recovery funds to invest in.  
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/eu-labels-nuclear-power-green-germany-calls-it-dangerous-20220104-p59lmt.html

January 4, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE, politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Pro nuclear shills use UK’s energy crisis to promote nuclear, but with government action, renewable energy would solve the problem

Government failure behind energy crisis, Chartist, By Dave Toke -31/12/2021   The only thing wrong with renewables is that we’ve not built nearly enough of them, says Dave Toke. Amidst a global shortfall of gas supplies in relation to demand (and a global increase in gas prices), the anti-renewables lobbies are busy blaming a lack of wind and solar (wot, solar too?) for the soaring energy prices. It’s nonsense of course to pin the blame on renewables for a combination of a global oil and gas crisis and the UK’s unique market vulnerability to natural gas supply squeezes, but that’s precisely what is happening. The truth is we’d be much more secure and greener with a much higher proportion of energy coming from renewables backed up with a revived storage network that successive UK governments have allowed to run down. 

Of course we’ve had fossil fuel energy price surges and crises for decades, but now, suddenly, to read some papers and a lot of tweets, I’m told mainly from fossil fuel lobbyists,  it’s the fault of renewables! Remarkable! 

Some are even using the crisis to boost the case for nuclear power. Now that’s ironic, given that five out of 14 of EDF’s nuclear units are offline as I write! With nuclear, of course, it’s always going to be better in the future (and never is). Certainly, the idea that the UK relying on 3.2GW units (like Hinkley C and the planned Sizewell C) for its security at times of pressure is a guarantee of system security needs rather clearer analysis than is being done at the moment. (By the way, did you know that the first Hinkley C – like EPR in China – got shut down this summer because of radioactive leaks? Somebody please tell me when it gets back online.)………………..

We need much, much more renewables. Currently, the UK generates about 100TWh a year of wind and solar, compared to around 900TWh of natural gas consumption. How on earth can you blame wind and solar for a failure to meet gas demand when the Government has so far incentivised only a small fraction of the renewable energy generation required to phase out reliance on natural gas? It’s gaslighting on a grand scale (pun intended). 

And, yes, there’s easily enough renewables to do the job. All of UK energy could be supplied from offshore wind occupying less than less than 8 per cent of the UK’s offshore waters, not counting all the solar and other renewable energy resources in the UK. https://www.chartist.org.uk/government-failure-behind-energy-crisis/

January 4, 2022 Posted by | politics, renewable, UK | Leave a comment

German government struggles to unite on EU energy proposal

German government struggles to unite on EU energy proposal, DW, 4 Jan 22,

The EU Commission’s proposal to classify nuclear power and natural gas plants as “green” investments has sparked debate in Germany’s new coalition government. Conflict is also brewing between EU states.

Less than a month after Germany’s new coalition government was sworn in, it is facing a major test: To find a united stance in response to a controversial proposal by the EU Commission, published on New Year’s Eve.

The EU Commission wants to label natural gas and nuclear power as climate-friendly, and include investments in both energies on its long-awaited taxonomy list — a green labeling system for investments in the energy sector.

The list is part of the bloc’s plans to decarbonize the European economy and build clean power plants, which will require the investment of billions of euros.

Under the draft proposal, the gas and nuclear plants must meet certain criteria: Investment in new nuclear plants as they are planned in France, the Netherlands, and Poland, can be considered “sustainable” only if respective states ensure they meet the latest technology standards, and provide a concrete plan for the disposal for high-level radioactive waste. 

Natural gas plants could also be granted a green label for a limited period of time, provided certain criteria are met. These could involve limits on the amount of greenhouse gas emitted or proving that the plants can also be operated with green hydrogen or low-carbon gas. 

The classification of economic activities by the EU Commission under the so-called taxonomy is intended to enable investors to switch their investments to more sustainable technologies and companies.

Divided coalition………………

Climate and Economy Minister and Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, told German press agency dpa that he felt the EU proposal “waters down the good label for sustainability.”

“It’s questionable whether this greenwashing will be accepted by the financial markets anyway,” the Green politician said.

Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (Greens) also rated the EU proposal as “questionable.”………….

Klaus Jacob of the Research Center for Environment Policy at Berlin’s Freie Universität says the debate within the government was completely foreseeable.

“This isn’t a predetermined breaking point in the coalition,” Jacob told DW…………………….

Nuclear phaseout nearing completion

The three governing coalition parties are, however, in agreement when it comes to the phaseout of nuclear energy. Germany’s last nuclear power plants are due to be decommissioned just a year from now.

The decision to phase out nuclear power was made during the 1998-2003 coalition between the SPD and Greens under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, in response to the realization that there was no way to store nuclear waste safely. Almost two decades earlier, Germany’s anti-nuclear protests gave birth to the Green Party and the phaseout has long been one of its core policies.

Angela Merkel’s coalition government of center-right Christian Democrats and FDP then rolled back the phaseout. But in 2011, after the accident at the Fukushima atomic power plant in Japan, Merkel made an about-turn and decided to push through with the phaseout after all.

Referring to the EU’s plans to green label nuclear energy, Environment Minister Lemke said the Commission “creates the great danger of blocking and damaging really viable, sustainable investments in favor of dangerous nuclear power.”……………

EU fissure

The 27 EU member states now have until January 12 to comment on the Commission’s draft. But it’s unlikely that the proposal can be blocked. Besides Germany, only Austria, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Portugal have voiced criticism. 

Implementation can only be prevented if at least 20 EU countries (representing at least 65% of the total EU population) or at least 353 members of parliament vote against it.

Other EU countries are continuing to push nuclear energy and campaign for it to be included on the EU’s list of sustainable energy sources eligible for investment — prominently France which holds the rotating EU presidency and is heading for presidential elections in April.

Austria, meanwhile, is threatening to go to the European Court of Justice to stop the draft from being passed.

Edited by Rina Goldenberg   https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-struggles-to-unite-on-eu-energy-proposal/a-60319292

January 4, 2022 Posted by | climate change, Germany, politics | Leave a comment

Will Biden stay the course toward nuclear disarmament?

When President Joe Biden took office last year, a historic shift in U.S. nuclear policy seemed likely. Now, with ongoing threats from Russia and China, experts say moving away from nuclear weapons may be more difficult. CS Monitor, By Robert Burns Associated Press, 4 Jan 22,

Joe Biden’s arrival in the White House nearly a year ago seemed to herald a historic shift toward less U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons and possibly a shrinking of their numbers. Even an American “no first use” pledge – a promise to never again be the first to use a nuclear weapon – seemed possible.
The outlook will be clearer when the Biden administration completes its so-called nuclear posture review – an internal relook at the numbers, kinds, and purposes of weapons in the nuclear arsenal, as well as the policies that govern their potential use. The results could be made public as early as January.

The biggest unknown is how forcefully Mr. Biden will weigh in on these questions, based on White House calculations of the political risk. During his years as vice president, Mr. Biden talked of new directions in nuclear policy. But heightened concerns about China and Russia would seem to improve the political leverage of Republicans seeking to portray such change as a gift to nuclear adversaries.

Tom Z. Collina, policy director at Ploughshares Fund, an advocate for nuclear disarmament, says the China and Russia problems complicate the politics of Mr. Biden’s nuclear review but should not stop him from acting to reduce nuclear dangers.

“We do not want a new nuclear arms race with either nation and the only way to prevent that is with diplomacy,” Mr. Collina said. “We must remember the main lesson we learned in the Cold War with Russia – the only way to win an arms race is not to run.”………………………

The Pentagon has not publicly discussed details of the nuclear review, but the administration seems likely to keep the existing contours of the nuclear force – the traditional “triad” of sea-, air-, and land-based weapons, which critics call overkill. It also may embrace a $1 trillion-plus modernization of that force, which was launched by the Obama administration and continued by Mr. Trump.

It’s unclear whether Mr. Biden will approve any significant change in what is called “declaratory policy,” which states the purpose of nuclear weapons and the circumstances under which they might be used.

The Obama administration, with Mr. Biden as vice president, stated in 2010 that it would “only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.” It did not define “extreme circumstances.”

Eight years later, the Trump administration restated the Obama policy but got more specific. “Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks. Significant non-nuclear strategic attacks include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.”…………… https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2022/0103/Will-Biden-stay-the-course-toward-nuclear-disarmament

January 4, 2022 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »