nuclear-news

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

Sizewell nuclear project: planning process drags on: thousands of objectors, yet tax-payer funding already promised!

Letter: Your article (PM to put nuclear power at heart of UK’s energy
strategy, 6 April) refers to Sizewell C as one of the major projects that
has “already been through some form of planning”. The planning process
is still going on, and thousands of interested parties have objected.

Six months of Planning Inspectorate meetings exposed the mistakes of trying to
build two gigantic reactors in the middle of an area of outstanding natural
beauty and site of special scientific interest, pushed against the Minsmere
nature reserve, on an eroding coastline, and with no available water for
construction or operation, among other problems.

This hasn’t stopped Kwasi Kwarteng promising millions in taxpayer funding for Sizewell C when
the planning process has not been completed and while he refuses to meet
the community to hear alternative views.

 Guardian 10th April 2022

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/10/uk-energy-strategys-nuclear-dangers-and-glaring-omissions

April 12, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Emmanuel Macron Gets Nuclear Energy All Wrong

The price of nuclear generation today is inordinate: a rip-off in terms of value, to put it bluntly. Indeed, while safety concerns drive up the cost of nuclear plant insurance, the price of renewables is predicted to sink further, by as much as 50 percent or more by 2030. ……No nuclear reactors anywhere are built without enormous government support, and France will be no different: The bill for the French taxpayers will start at $57 billion, according to the New York Times.

The single greatest barrier to the so-called nuclear renaissance is nuclear power itself and its inability to deliver affordable power on time and on budget.

Nuclear power won’t help France meet its climate goals on budget or on time.

 https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/22/macron-france-nuclear-energy-climate-renewables/ By Paul Hockenos, a Berlin-based journalist. 22  Mar 22,  At year’s end, Germany will shutter its last three nuclear plants; Belgium will follow suit by 2025. France, on the other hand, is committed to remaining Europe’s last stronghold of nuclear energy. At the center of French President Emmanuel Macron’s re-election platform is his plan to construct as many as 14 new-generation reactors and a fleet of smaller nuclear plants, supposedly to bolster the country’s climate protection strategy.

France’s bet on nuclear energy, however, is an egregious miscalculation that will severely inhibit its decarbonization efforts. At a critical juncture in the battle against climate change, diverting any finances and losing time with nuclear power, which has been in decline worldwide for decades, will only set back the country’s climate efforts, perhaps dooming its chances to go carbon neutral by 2050. Indeed, this Hail Mary pass, taken out of desperation as France has fallen woefully behind on its climate targets, will most probably come to naught anyway as the era of nuclear power wanes further no matter France’s declarations. 

The simple explanation: Fully fledged renewables are faster, cheaper, and lower risk than nuclear power.

Despite the flurry of media hype around new nuclear energy and loose talk of a “nuclear renaissance,” in recent years, the arguments against nuclear power have grown demonstrably stronger.

Critics’ original concern with nuclear power, namely its safety, remains levelheaded and paramount. The two most catastrophic meltdowns—namely in 1986 at Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear power plant and in 2011 at Japan’s Fukushima site—are well known and had horrific repercussions that haunt those regions today. But these mega disasters are only the blockbusters. 

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there have been 33 serious incidents at nuclear power stations worldwide since 1952—two in France, and six of them in the United States. Currently, a fifth of France’s geriatric nuclear generation is shut down because of safety issues—the older reactors get, the higher the risk of an accident—exacerbating an acute energy crunch there. So much for the 24/7 reliability of nuclear power.

And then there’s the now 80-year-old conundrum of how and where to dispose of radioactive waste. To date, no secure repositories are in operation anywhere in the world for the spent fuel, which remains toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. Experts estimate that more than 250,000 metric tons of radioactive waste—over 14,000 metric tons in France and 90,000 metric tons in the United States—is currently in temporary storage near nuclear power plants and military production facilities worldwide.

In France and elsewhere, there’s broad agreement that for security and health reasons, highly radioactive material can’t simply be lodged interminably at interim sites. But France’s wish to one day entomb its toxic refuse 500 meters below the Earth’s surface and 186 miles east of Paris is still on hold as locals refuse to accept the presence of a long-term nuclear repository near their homes. The story is the same just about everywhere: No one wants to raise families near a nuclear waste dump.

But these days, there are other arguments against nuclear energy that are arguably even more averse to a nuclear revival than the issues of safety and nuclear waste.

Nuclear power plants have actually pulled off one of the most remarkable feats of recent technological history: Where virtually all other technologies have gotten cheaper over time as they have developed and matured, nuclear power has actually become more expensive. Indeed, it has grown dauntingly costly compared with renewables: at least four times as costly as utility-scale solar and onshore wind power. While the cost of solar and wind energy generation, as well as battery storage, plummets by the year—in 2020 alone, onshore wind costs declined by 13 percent and those of utility-scale solar photovoltaics by 7 percent—the bill for new nuclear sites climbs upward.

The price of nuclear generation today is inordinate: a rip-off in terms of value, to put it bluntly. Indeed, while safety concerns drive up the cost of nuclear plant insurance, the price of renewables is predicted to sink further, by as much as 50 percent or more by 2030. This price trend is one reason why in 2020 total investment in new renewable electricity surpassed $300 billion, 17 times global investment in nuclear power, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report. No nuclear reactors anywhere are built without enormous government support, and France will be no different: The bill for the French taxpayers will start at $57 billion, according to the New York Times.

This yawning price differential means renewables generate many more times the electricity per dollar invested than does nuclear—and thus decreases emissions by a greater factor.

The single greatest barrier to the so-called nuclear renaissance is nuclear power itself and its inability to deliver affordable power on time and on budget. If Europe’s current headline nuclear projects are a measure—marred for decades now by massive cost overruns and protracted delays—France’s hopes to have its first new reactor up and running by 2035 are illusory. In Flamanville in northwest France, the French energy firm EDF is struggling to finish a reactor that is a full decade behind schedule and now roughly four times above cost projections. The Olkiluoto 3 reactors in Finland, also many times over budget, have been delayed again and again since the early 2000s.

Indeed, not one reactor conceived since 2000 in the European Union has generated even a kilowatt of energy. The Olkiluoto 3 plant may begin commercial activities this year. As for the new, smaller, presumably cheaper nuclear reactors envisioned by billionaire Bill Gates among others, not one is in operation anywhere in the world.

In a widely circulated Jan. 25 letter penned by four former top nuclear energy regulators in France, the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom, the authors excoriated the viability of relying on nuclear energy to beat climate change: Nuclear energy, they argue, “is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change. To make a relevant contribution to global power generation, up to more than ten thousand new reactors would be required, depending on reactor design.”

The fact is that nuclear power is simply too cumbersome to really play a meaningful role in tackling climate change—in France or elsewhere. We don’t have that kind of time. Indeed, there is no way countries can meet their 2030 decarbonization goals agreed to at the Paris Agreement by embarking now on nuclear power programs.


In stark contrast, renewable energy is a sprinter: Farms can be licensed, financed, and deployed much faster because they’re smaller, less capital intensive, more quickly approved, and easier to build. Depending on the country, vast utility-scale solar fields and onshore wind farms can materialize in just a handful of years. Last year, China brought to life about 50 gigawatts of solar capacity—that’s as much electricity generation as 10 nuclear reactors. Even the average nine-year schedule of offshore wind parks is still much, much shorter than nuclear’s erratic, extended timelines.

In Europe and elsewhere, building out nuclear power will greatly hamper the effort to curb climate change, not help it. “The more urgent climate change is, the more we must invest judiciously, not indiscriminately,” writes sustainability expert Amory Lovins, “to buy cheap, fast, sure options instead of costly, slow, speculative ones.”

In the end, the evidence speaks conclusively for ramping down fossil fuels and nuclear energy as fast as possible while embarking on an all-out expansion of sustainable renewables: wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, and tidal/wave energy. Modern gas works will back up this clean energy model until green hydrogen can take over. Ever better energy storage, smart grids, energy conservation, and digital management will make this model of the future work.

Germany and Belgium—like Austria, Italy, and nine other EU countries—are looking the facts straight in the eye. By swearing off nuclear energy and fossil fuels at the same time, these countries will have the best chance at making a net-zero energy system functional by 2050, at the latest.  https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/22/macron-france-nuclear-energy-climate-renewables/

Paul Hockenos is a Berlin-based journalist. His recent book is Berlin Calling: A Story of Anarchy, Music, the Wall and the Birth of the New Berlin (The New Press).   

April 11, 2022 Posted by | France, politics | 1 Comment

Boris goes all out for UK nuclear

‘I do not think we should be building any new nuclear reactors until we have a geological disposal facility available.’ That applies to all scales of nuclear, SMRs as well as big plants, they all produce wastes. 

https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2022/04/boris-goes-all-out-for-uk-nuclear.html Under the heading ‘Boris Johnson’s fixation on nuclear is a threat to Britain’s energy supply’, Times chief leader writer Simon Nixon said ‘Boris Johnson’s plans to build at least six or seven new nuclear power stations is the wrong strategy for meeting the government’s need to ensure the UK’s energy security, lower public bills and achieve its net-zero target. Britain’s track record on building nuclear power stations is almost as dire as its record in building garden bridges’. 

Nevertheless, despite negative views like this, Boris ploughed on. Indeed he managed to turn this criticism around, asking ‘why have the French got 56 nuclear reactors and we’ve got barely six?.’ He said we needed ‘big ticket’ nuclear solutions and also looked to having Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) before 2030.  Not everyone is convinced that SMR’s can deliver, but Johnson’s confidence in them may have been the result of a meeting with Last Energy, a US nuclear promoter backed by Elon Musk, which is pushing a simple fast-track mini PWR, at 20 MW, far smaller than the 470 MW Rolls Royce system. There was talk of 100s of units being deployed across the UK.  Last Energy’s business credo  ‘Innovate on the delivery model, not the reactor’, may have appealed to Boris. 

However, on the renewables side, while he was still keen on offshore wind (‘Energy companies tell me they can get an offshore wind turbine upright and generating in less than 24 hours’), the prospects for on-shore wind, which had begun to look more promising, seem to have taken a hit in favour of more nuclear- on shore wind once again getting some Tory ‘eyesore’ backlash, despite it actually attracting 80% public support. The expansion of the ECO energy saving scheme was also hit, despite energy efficiency arguably being the cheapest option of all.  

So when the new energy security strategy finally emerged it was not surprising that there was a commitment to 24 GW of nuclear by 2050, no new targets for on shore wind and very little on the energy savings side, just a £30m ‘heat pump investment accelerator competition’.   But at least a 50 GW offshore wind target by 2030 was confirmed, with up to 5GW of it being floating systems, coupled with a doubling of the low-carbon hydrogen target to 10GW by 2030, with at least half being green hydrogen. However, on shore wind will only get limited support: communities can volunteer for a project (although they could have anyway) and possibly get cheaper power, but with no significant changes in planning rules.  There will though be some PV planning rule changes to help solar expand- with an up to a five-fold increase in deployment expected by 2035. If achieved that would be a massive 70GW, although no target was specified.

Apart from the lamentable lack of support for on-shore wind and, even more provocatively, for energy saving, the nuclear expansion was the most controversial part. The strategy report says ‘a new government body, Great British Nuclear, will be set up immediately to bring forward new projects, backed by substantial funding, and we will launch the [already announced]  £120 million Future Nuclear Enabling Fund this month. We will work to progress a series of projects as soon as possible this decade, including Wylfa site in Anglesey. This could mean delivering up to eight reactors, equivalent to one reactor a year instead of one a decade, accelerating nuclear in Britain’.

Why nuclear?

It’s hard to see why Johnson thinks a big nuclear push is needed, or a good idea- apart from catching up with France! A bit more credibly, the strategy report stresses the importance of energy independence, but the nuclear programme has of late been mostly based on imported (French) technology and expertise- as well as funding from overseas.  It now looks as if he will no longer rely on China for any of this, but the new RAB funding scheme will allow nuclear plant developers like EDF to put a surcharge on UK power consumers bills to raise the necessary capital for construction in advance of any power being supplied.  That may be independence of a kind, but the profits do still go abroad

And it will be a decade or more before any of the proposed new nuclear plants (at Sizewell and elsewhere) are running- assuming all goes well.  So we will get hit with the costs now, or at least soon, but not get the benefits until far in the future. So much for helping to cut costs for hard pressed consumers

The energy independence idea is also not as urgent as it might appear. The UK does not import significant amounts of Russian gas, unlike Germany (and Austria), where admittedly things could get bad unless urgent action is taken.  But they are doing that, Germany backing renewables even more strongly, and both still being opposed to nuclear. That choice has been reinforced by the war in Ukraine which has illustrated just how risky it can be to have nuclear plants in conflict zones. The possibility of terrorist drone attacks apart, the UK may not (yet) face risks like that, but its coastal plants will increasingly face risks from climate change driven sea level rises and storm surges.  

One of the other key problems for nuclear has also been pointed up in response to the UK expansion plan – waste storage being a key one. Claire Corkhill, a professor of nuclear material degradation at the University of Sheffield said ‘I do not think we should be building any new nuclear reactors until we have a geological disposal facility available.’ That applies to all scales of nuclear, SMRs as well as big plants, they all produce wastes. 

Overall, it does seem odd to be pushing nuclear so hard.  For example, if it was really about an energy gap, it would be easy for renewables to fill it. RenewableUK says the UK could end its dependence on gas and replace it with renewable energy within the next 5 years – if the limit imposed on the amount of onshore wind was removed and budgets raised for deployment. Energy saving could do that too.  If it was really about jobs, then, as the UKERC has recently pointed out, renewable energy can create at least 2 times more jobs than nuclear, while investment in energy saving can create 5 times as many. If it was really about variable renewables and grid balancing, well the last thing we need is more large inflexible nuclear plants. And if it was really about costs and consumer bills, then why go for nuclear, the most expensive option. If that sort of money was available, why not go for tidal lagoons and tidal current turbines?  

However, all is not entirely lost. The 50 GW by 2030 offshore wind target is a significant  one, as is the hoped for 5-fold by 2035 PV solar expansion – putting the 24 GW by 2050 nuclear target into some sort of perspective. But we don’t really need it. And judging by the gross completion problems with the EPRs in France and Finland, and the problems with China’s version of it, the UK’s new 8 plant nuclear plan, with its ‘one reactor per year’ average installation target, seems very unlikely to be realised. 

All in all, the offshore wind and solar parts aside, not much of a viable security plan, and a bit thin in any case, with lots of targets but very little detail. Indeed, the Times leader (8/4/22) said ‘the number 8 appears to have been plucked out of the air’ and overall it was ‘little more than a glorified press release’, with the lack of effective commitment to energy saving making it ‘a cop out’. While Greenpeace said ‘the urgency of the climate crisis needed an urgent response. Sadly, the government’s energy security plan didn’t deliver.’ Not a lot of support then across the political spectrum. 

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

Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has hit back at the UK Government’s plans for new nuclear power plants

NICOLA Sturgeon has hit back at the UK Government’s plans for new
nuclear power plants after The National revealed the Tories were
considering building one in Scotland.

The First Minister said “nobody’s ever yet worked out what to do with the waste” generated by atomic power and said it was “expensive” compared with renewables. It comes after
The National revealed the Tories’ new energy strategy – which said no
new nuclear plants would be built in Scotland – contradicted current UK
Government policy which officials confirmed was still exploring the
possibility of a new site [for a Fusion reactor] in Ayrshire.

Speaking at the launch of the SNP’s Glasgow manifesto launch on Saturday, the First
Minister told reporters: “We don’t support new nuclear. “It is an
expensive form of energy compared to many renewable resources and,
increasingly, wind energy and nobody’s ever yet worked out what to do
with the waste from nuclear energy. “Scotland has vast renewable
potential – we see that in offshore wind. I think one of the missed
opportunities – for entirely political reasons – in the UK
Government’s was around onshore wind, failing to increase generation from
onshore wind.

“But we’ve also got vast offshore wind resources which we
see in the recent ScotWind auction round, so that’s where we should be
focusing. “From the perspective of securing energy, independence and
security but also cheaper energy bills in the longer-term renewables is
where we need to put our efforts and – pardon the pun – our energies
over the period ahead.” The National 9th April 2022https://www.thenational.scot/news/20057654.nicola-sturgeon-hits-back-scottish-nuclear-site-deliberations/

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

UK Government should ‘impose’ energy projects on devolved nations says Conservative editor

UK Government should ‘impose’ energy projects on devolved nations says
Conservative editor. The UK Government should “impose” energy projects
on the devolved nations, a Conservative editor has said. Conservative Home
deputy editor Henry Hill was responding to the suggestion by Business
Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng that they should respect Wales and Scotland’s
devolved competencies.

Planning powers are devolved to Scotland, meaning
that they could block any new nuclear site. The Welsh Government has the
power to consent energy projects with a generating capacity of up to 350MW,
meaning that the power to give the go-ahead to a nuclear power plant is
reserved to Westminster. Kwasi Kwarteng said the nuclear reactors are being
planned for England and Wales, insisting there is “huge appetite” for
this “particularly in Wales”.

But he said: “We have no plans to
impose nuclear reactors in Scotland. It is a devolved affair, that is up to
people in Edinburgh to decide what their nuclear policy is.” But Henry
Hill said that “energy should not be evolved” saying that the UK
Government should not “give a veto” to those opposing their energy
plans. Nation Cymru 9th April 2022https://nation.cymru/news/uk-government-should-impose-energy-projects-on-devolved-nations-says-conservative-editor/

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

In the UK’s energy plan, the nation has been sold a dud

 Jim Watson, director, UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources: Britain was
promised a bold and visionary energy plan. But we’ve been sold a dud.
Does it deliver what it says on the tin?

The answer is straightforward. It fails. At the heart of most definitions of energy security is reliability
of supplies for households and businesses.  This is usually complemented by
a focus on affordability. 

The new strategy does very little to deal with the immediate impacts of high fossil fuel prices.
While the government has announced some help for households via loans and a
council tax reduction, this is simply not enough. The energy price cap has
already risen to almost £2,000 a year and a further rise is due in the
autumn.

This comes on top of a wider cost of living crisis and high levels
of inflation.is available, but the price is too high for businesses to
function or households to keep warm. While more money to help people pay
their bills is needed, this must be accompanied by action to prevent these
acute impacts in future. This means making homes more efficient and
switching away from fossil fuels for heating. It is nearly a decade since
effective policies for home energy efficiency were cancelled and replaced
with new approaches, such as the green deal, which have failed
spectacularly.

As a result, the steady improvements in efficiency and
financial benefits to households have virtually stopped. A new programme of
home upgrades is urgently needed. This would not only reduce our dependence
on gas, but would also cut bills and carbon emissions.

According to many headlines, nuclear power is the “centrepiece” of the strategy. The
government’s plans are ambitious, but delivery will be difficult. New
nuclear plants will not have an impact for many years. The Treasury’s
fingerprints are visible in the careful caveats in the strategy, including
an insistence that new projects are “subject to a value for money and
relevant approvals”.

This reflects the long history of rising costs
within the nuclear sector, and the financial risks that consumers or
taxpayers will be exposed to.

In short, the government has pulled its
punches and avoided measures that would have a more immediate impact on
energy security – mainly by reducing the amount of energy we need to use.
Instead, it has produced a mixed bag of energy supply proposals. While some
are credible, a large nuclear power programme will require huge amounts of
political and financial capital. History suggests that this will be very
difficult to deliver.

 Guardian 9th April 2022

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/09/britain-was-promised-bold-visionary-energy-policy-sold-a-dud

April 11, 2022 Posted by | ENERGY, politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s new energy strategy will accelerate the development of nuclear power generation despite Treasury opposition

 As expected, the Strategy will detail plans to accelerate the development of nuclear power
generation. It will target 24GW of installed capacity by 2050, meaning that
nuclear will provide 25% of the UK’s electricity demands by mid-century.

The Government has stated that it will support the delivery of up to eight
large plants this decade, including Wylfa, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C.
It will also support small modular reactors (SMRs). It has been reported
that Johnson has pushed hard for these targets on nuclear, despite
opposition from the Treasury.

Edie 6th April 2022

 https://www.edie.net/energy-security-strategy-uk-targets-95-low-carbon-electricity-mix-by-2030-but-will-increase-oil-and-gas-production/

April 9, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

British government launches a new government body – Great British Nuclear.

 A new government body, Great British Nuclear, will be set
up immediately to bring forward new projects, backed by substantial
funding, and we will launch the £120 million Future Nuclear Enabling Fund
this month. We will work to progress a series of projects as soon as
possible this decade, including Wylfa site in Anglesey. This could mean
delivering up to eight reactors, equivalent to one reactor a year instead
of one a decade, accelerating nuclear in Britain.

 BEIS 6th April 2022

April 9, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

U.S. government high on the narcotic of ”Defense” spending – the war corporations love it !

 Exacerbating the dilemma are the close ties between the Washington establishment and the defense industry, which lobbies lawmakers and funds their campaigns.

Another problem is the so-called revolving door, wherein many defense officials tasked with overseeing procurement go on to work for companies in the private sector. In January, the Project On Government Oversight watchdog reported that over the past three years Lockheed Martin hired 44 former Pentagon officials, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman 24 each, Boeing at least 23, and General Dynamics eight.

A staggering $286 billion in US defense spending went to these five well-connected suppliers in 2019 and 2020, according to the report.

Biden’s Ukraine Arms-Buying Spree Boosts US Defense Industry Giants  https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/bidens-ukraine-arms-buying-spree-boosts-us-d-1493247.html, Muhammad Irfan   April 06, 2022  WASHINGTON (UrduPoint News / Sputnik US defense contractors are raking in additional billions of Dollars as a direct result of President Joe Biden’s policy toward Ukraine, and stand to gain even more based on administration plans to bolster NATO while setting new military spending records.

After Russia launched its operation in Ukraine on February 24, the Pentagon‘s top five suppliers saw their stock prices rise – with three jumping by double digits in the first week, as investors on Wall Street anticipated a surge in weapons orders.

However, the spike began well before Russian forces entered Ukraine and in line with Washington‘s growing support for Kiev. For example, in the second week of January the US delivered about $200 million in security assistance to Ukraine just as lawmakers were set to introduce legislation for $200 million more.

In January, Raytheon chief Greg Hayes told investors on an earnings call that he fully expected to see the company benefit from the tensions in Eastern Europe with new international sales opportunities, a sentiment other contractors echoed, which has now become a reality. Since the beginning of the year, Lockheed Martin’s stock price rose by over 25 percent while Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics each saw a spike of over 15%.

“War is excellent for business,” Australian global peace activist Helen Caldicott told Sputnik.

Javelin manufacturer Raytheon and Stinger supplier Lockheed Martin are especially ecstatic over the situation in Ukraine, added Caldicott, the founder of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Former Pentagon analyst Chuck Spinney was surprised by neither the conflict itself, which he called a “predictable consequence” of NATO expansion, nor the US defense establishment’s reaction to it.

“It now has champagne corks popping in the Pentagon, in the defense industry, and in their wholly owned subsidiaries in Congress, think tanks, the intelligence apparatus, and the press,” Spinney told Sputnik.

US President Joe Biden has repeatedly boasted about the largess of security aid his administration has bestowed Ukraine, which now stands at $2.3 billion – 70 percent of which has been doled out within the past five weeks alone.

The weapons the Biden administration committed or delivered to Ukraine by mid-March included 1,400 Stinger anti-aircraft weapons,10,000 Javelin and AT4 shoulder-fired anti-tank systems, and 60 million rounds of ammunition, to name just a few of the big ticket items listed on a White House fact sheet. Thousands of other weapons in the packages include grenade launchers, rifles, pistols, machine guns, and shotguns – in addition to 100 tactical drones, 25,000 sets of body armor, and 25,000 helmets.

US allies are also giving defense contractors reason to celebrate. According to the White House, at least 30 countries have provided security assistance to Ukraine since the operation began.

Yet, even before current tensions, Ukraine for years had been a leading recipient of US military aid. Since 2014, the US has provided Kiev with a total of more than $4 billion in security assistance, including the aid authorized under Biden, according to a State Department fact sheet.

Meanwhile, the US troop presence in Europe has jumped from 60,000 to 100,000 following the start of the Ukraine conflict. And the US and its NATO allies have announced intentions to send even more to boost the alliance‘s “eastern flank.”

Spinney said understanding the internal political-economic causes of the US addiction to the narcotic of defense spending is at the heart of the problem.

Citing American strategic thinker John Boyd, Spinney said the strategy is simple: “Don’t interrupt the money flow, add to it.”

Sure enough, on March 28, the Biden administration submitted to Congress a budget request for 2023 that included $773 billion in spending for the Pentagon, a 4% increase from the previous year. Another $40 billion in defense-related spending through other agencies brings the total to $813 billion, which would represent a record level national security budget if approved.

Biden has asked Congress for nearly $7 billion to strengthen NATO and other European partners in order to counter Moscow, according to the White House. In addition, $682 million was requested for Ukraine security assistance, an increase of $219 million, which Biden said was meant to forcefully respond to Russia‘s “aggression” against Ukraine.

Nor is the next wave of weapons spending likely to stop there. Senior military commanders have already staked out the ground for further prodigal spending. On March 29, US European Command chief Todd Wolters in testimony to Congress said he suspected the Pentagon was “going to still need more.”

Only six days earlier, Republican lawmakers called for higher defense spending, saying that Russia‘s operation in Ukraine “has already left us and our NATO allies less secure.”

VICIOUS CYCLE, TWISTED INCENTIVES

The recent spending sprees, the experts said, are consistent with confrontational US policies – from the Cold War to the war on terrorism. Exacerbating the dilemma is the close ties between the Washington establishment and the defense industry, which lobbies lawmakers and funds their campaigns.

Another problem is the so-called revolving door, wherein many defense officials tasked with overseeing procurement go on to work for companies in the private sector. In January, the Project On Government Oversight watchdog reported that over the past three years Lockheed Martin hired 44 former Pentagon officials, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman 24 each, Boeing at least 23, and General Dynamics eight.

A staggering $286 billion in US defense spending went to these five well-connected suppliers in 2019 and 2020, according to the report.

Spinney, who once appeared on Time Magazine’s cover for highlighting reckless defense spending during the Reagan administration, said the “first” Cold War’s 40-year climate of fear was something then-Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev tried to end. But successive US administrations were busy planting the seed money for a new generation of cold-war inspired weapons.

The former Pentagon analyst said President George W. Bush‘s Global War on Terror was the bridging operation that “greased the transition” to Cold War II by keeping defense budgets at Cold War levels.

The 9-11 terrorist attacks helped fuel a climate of fear, he added, that is now needed to sustain Cold War II for the remainder of the 21st Century

Caldicott said the consequences of those decisions have unleashed wars and suffering around the world anew over the past two decades.

“Since 2001, the US has spent $6.4 trillion on killing and destruction in 85 countries, murdering 801,000 people,” Caldicott said while noting that the stocks of the top five defense contractors outperformed the overall market by a whopping 58 percent.

To make matters worse, the peace activist added, all members of Congress received huge amounts of money from these “killing corporations.”

April 7, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, Reference, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Incompetence of Britain’s leaders, on energy policy

Jonathon Porritt: This is absolutely the right time for a new Energy
Strategy. Unfortunately, we’ve got absolutely the wrong politicians in
charge of it. The combination of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak all but
guarantees that the new Energy Security Strategy will fail on most counts.

– In Boris Johnson, we have a careless showman, drawn unerringly to
‘big ticket’ announcements, groomed by a nuclear industry that knows
exactly how to play to these personality defects. – In Rishi Sunak, we
have a man so detached from the reality of most people’s lives that the
prospect of five million UK citizens finding themselves in fuel poverty by
the end of the year means literally nothing.

Careless Johnson and callous
Sunak is a devastating double-act – with the inconsequential figure of
Kwasi Kwarteng lurking around to pick up the pieces.

 Jonathon Porritt 5th April 2022

http://www.jonathonporritt.com/prospects-for-energy-security-marred-by-nuclear-fantasies/

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

In Japan, no return to nuclear power any time soon, despite loud voices wanting this,

Nuclear Power’s Growing Fan Base in Japan Faces a Reality Check  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-06/nuclear-power-s-growing-fan-base-in-japan-faces-a-reality-check By Tsuyoshi Inajima and Shoko Oda, 6 April 2022,   Voices calling for Japan to ramp up its use of nuclear power are getting louder, but a rapid return is unlikely even as the nation faces another possible energy crunch this summer. 

The global power crisis is causing electricity bills to surge in Japan, while war in Ukraine is pressuring the country to seek alternatives to Russian energy. The fragility of the nation’s power grid was exposed last month when the one-two punch of a strong quake and frigid weather nearly delivered a blackout to Tokyo.

With few resources available to build capacity, and the threat of another power shortage looming with the return of hot, humid weather, lawmakers from both the ruling party and opposition are calling for a quick restart to reactors. Public support is also growing, as a recent survey showed a narrow majority in Japan now support turning idled plants back online

But a web of red-tape governing nuclear reactors born from the Fukushima nuclear disaster 11 years ago means that resuming operations can’t speed up, no matter the political pressure.

“If the Nuclear Regulation Authority approves nuclear reactor restarts based strictly on scientific findings, and not political decisions, then the current pace won’t change anytime soon,” said Reiji Ogino, an analyst at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co.

Japan’s NRA oversees the restart protocols of the country’s remaining 33 operable nuclear reactors. Ever since Japan turned its fleet of 54 reactors offline after the 2011 disaster, only 10 have restarted under the new rules that ensure the units are safe. 

“The NRA is restarting nuclear reactors at a slower pace than everyone had expected,” Ogino said. 

That’s putting Japan’s power grid under more strain, which nearly caused the blackout in Tokyo last month. Thermal power plants were knocked out by a magnitude 7.4 earthquake, followed by a blast of cold weather that boosted power demand, threatening outages in the nation’s biggest city. While Tokyo managed to prevent a disaster, the situation could repeat when summer demand spikes as residents turn on their air conditioners. 

Seven nuclear power units, while being cleared by the NRA, have yet to finish additional construction work needed to restart. “It’s unlikely that these units will restart before the upcoming peak summer season,” Ogino said. 

Syusaku Nishikawa, an analyst at Daiwa Securities Co., forecasts most of the seven reactors won’t resume operations until October next year at the earliest.

One way to speed up the process would be to shift nuclear authority back to the government. Before the independent NRA was created on the back of the Fukushima disaster, the authority existed under Japan’s trade ministry, which had actively pushed for using more atomic power but at the cost of cutting corners. Passing that power back isn’t expected anytime soon, and would be highly controversial.

“Someone has to take responsibility for safety” should the rules change and nuclear power plants that haven’t met standards are allowed to operate, said Nishikawa. “There’s a lot of difficulty in making that political decision.”

April 7, 2022 Posted by | Japan, politics | Leave a comment

Chancellor Olaf Scholz reiterated Germany’s determination to close down all nuclear power stations

Scholz Shoots Down Appeal to Reverse Germany’s Nuclear Exit, Bloomberg, German Power Sources, Michael Nienaber and Arne Delfs, 6 April 2022,

Chancellor Olaf Scholz reiterated his opposition to reversing Germany’s exit from nuclear power to help cut reliance on Russian energy, saying the technical challenges would be too great.

Germany is rushing to end its heavy dependence on Russian fossil fuels following the invasion of Ukraine but the process has been complicated by the decision by former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s previous government to shut down the country’s nuclear power plants. The move was prompted by the disaster at Fukushima, Japan in 2011 and the remaining three reactors are due to go off line this year.

…..   more https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-06/scholz-shoots-down-appeal-to-reverse-germany-s-nuclear-exit—

April 7, 2022 Posted by | Germany, politics | Leave a comment

Does EDF really need even more subsidies for Sizewell C nuclear project?

By doing so, our beloved leaders are ensuring
that Sizewell C will now have subsidised development, subsidised
construction, subsidised power production and subsidised waste management,
for a project still being run by Europe’s most subsidised company,
Electricité de France. Free markets? Don’t you believe it.

Does EDF really need even more subsidies for Sizewell C?even more subsidies for Sizewell C? Under new
legislation, our normally parsimonious government has just earmarked a
further £1.7 billion towards meeting their (uncosted) promise to ensure
that another new nuclear fission power plant may possibly begin being built
before the next election.

By doing so, our beloved leaders are ensuring
that Sizewell C will now have subsidised development, subsidised
construction, subsidised power production and subsidised waste management,
for a project still being run by Europe’s most subsidised company,
Electricité de France. Free markets? Don’t you believe it.


 Electrical Review 6th April 2022 https://electricalreview.co.uk/2022/04/06/does-edf-really-need-even-more-subsidies-for-sizewell-c/













 

April 7, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Singapore’s nuclear power development is far away, relying on unproven reactor designs

Singapore’s Nuclear Power Potential Depends on Unproven Designs. By Stephen Stapczynski, 4 April 2022  Singapore’s contemplation of a potential nuclear power plant will depend on next-generation technologies, a move that indicates the goal is still decades away from fruition.

The island state says so-called small modular reactors or other next-generation nuclear technology have the potential to be much safer than many of the plants in operation today, Minister of State for Trade and Industry Alvin Tan said in response to questions in parliament on Monday. The country concluded roughly a decade ago that conventional nuclear reactors aren’t suitable ……………….   (subscribers only)   https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-04/singapore-s-nuclear-power-potential-depends-on-unproven-designs?srnd=markets-vp

April 5, 2022 Posted by | ASIA, politics | Leave a comment

UK government’s energy strategy relying on massive nuclear expansion will fail credibility test

The government is expected finally to publish its much-delayed energy
strategy review on Thursday. The review is urgently needed both to address
the soaring energy prices that are inflicting financial hardship on many
households but also to end Britain’s reliance on Russian oil and gas so
as to avoid funding Vladimir Putin’s war machine. The clear test of the
credibility of whatever the government announces must be whether and how
quickly it reduces Britain’s dependence on expensive hydrocarbons for the
bulk of its energy.

The chances of meeting that test look slim, given the
rifts within the government and Conservative Party that have so far held up
the review for more than a month. Bizarrely, Tory MPs have fought furiously
in favour of restarting fracking, which would do nothing to reduce
Britain’s reliance on hydrocarbons, while fiercely resisting any reversal
of the de-facto ban on new onshore wind farms, which would be by far the
quickest and cheapest way to bring new energy on stream.

Both would of course be difficult to deliver since they are beholden to local planning
decisions. But whereas polls indicate that the public is overwhelmingly
opposed to fracking, they reveal strong public support for onshore wind.

Indeed, a YouGov poll last year found that nearly 70 per cent of the public
would support onshore wind farms near where they live. Polls indicate that
support rises higher if it means cheaper energy for residents. A large
expansion of onshore wind ought to be a key feature of a credible strategy,
yet comments yesterday by Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, suggest
that opposition in cabinet rules this out. 

On the other hand, an energy
strategy that rests upon a massively expanded role for nuclear risks
failing the credibility test. That’s not because there isn’t a role for
nuclear as a source of baseload electricity for when solar and wind
supplies are low. There is a strong case for expanding Britain’s nuclear
fleet of 11 reactors, all but one of which are due to be deactivated by
2030, with only one new one, Hinkley Point C, under construction. 

The
problem is the same one that has dogged all recent efforts to expand the
nuclear fleet: vast costs of construction. The energy review needs to
contain realistic plans with deliverable timelines. Boris Johnson’s hopes
of delivering six or seven new nuclear power stations by 2050 look
implausible given that Britain has succeeded in starting construction of
one in the past 16 years and even that is nearly a decade behind schedule
and far over budget.

What’s more, under the government’s preferred funding model, construction costs would be passed on to consumers long before any electricity is delivered, further pushing up energy bills. 

 

The review must therefore include plans to expand other sources of baseload,
including battery storage and carbon capture for gas-fired power stations.

Finally a credible strategy must include plans to reduce energy demand as
well as expand supply. The government needs to turbo-charge the drive to
improve home insulation, the switch to heat-pumps and the optimisation of
the energy network. A smart grid that allows differential pricing and
households to sell electricity from home solar panels and electric car
batteries could dramatically reduce energy supply requirements. Such plans
may lack the glamour of Mr Johnson’s fantasy of a floating wind farm in
the Irish Sea. But they would show that the government is serious.

 Times 4th April 2022

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-britains-energy-strategy-power-play-p8g9hp0qp

April 5, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »