nuclear-news

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

France pays the steep cost of inflexible and ageing nuclear as electricity prices soar

French baseload and peak prices soar due to a combination of massive outages of French nuclear power plants, cold weather and inefficient heating

France pays the steep cost of inflexible and ageing nuclear as electricity prices soar — RenewEconomy 3 Apr 22,

The common refrain among critics of wind and solar is to blame their “variability” or “intermittency” for soaring electricity prices as Europe wrestles with gas shortages worsened by the war in Ukraine. But France, the nuclear “pin-up” country for the anti-renewables brigade, is not faring so well either.

Over the weekend, the key “day ahead” prices of electricity in France surged to unprecedented levels. On Friday, the futures price for “baseload” for wholesale French electricity price hit the eye-watering level of €714 a megawatt hour ($A1050/MWh).

It didn’t get much better by Sunday, when the day-ahead price for Monday settled at €515/MWh ($A758/MWh), which is the predicted average price over a 24-hour period. The price for peak electricity between 8am and 9am was €2,987/MWh ($A4,400/MWh).

The prices for both baseload and peak prices in the rest of the European market were significantly cheaper, and in Germany it was dramatically so.

The main reasons? Both supply and demand. Less than half (30GW) of France’s 64GW of nuclear capacity was available, thanks to planned and unplanned outages, and extended repairs due to corrosion issues in their ageing plants.

The forecast is for cold weather, and many French homes are fired with inefficient, energy hungry electric resistance heating, largely as a result that the French believed they had no reason to be energy efficient because of the their massive investment in nuclear.

“Massive outages of French nuclear power plants, in combination with cold weather and electric (often resistance) heating, are causing a critical situation for electricity supply there tomorrow,” energy analyst Kewes van der Leun tweeted over the weekend.

The French authority called on consumers to reduce their power consumption.

The situation in Europe is similar to the growing “north-side” divide in electricity prices in Australia, identified by the Australian Energy Market Operator, which has noted that since early 2021 average prices in the most heavily coal dependent states of Queensland and NSW are considering higher than elsewhere.

Partly that is due to a lack of transmission (France has similar problems), but also to the inflexibility of baseload, and the desperation of baseload owners to bid up prices when they can to recoup their costs.

Sure, states with high amounts of renewables do experience price spikes, but they tend to be short lived and the average price is significantly lower than so-called “cheap” coal.

The situation in France is not likely to get better any time soon. President Emmanuel Macron has pledge to invest significantly more in nuclear and his far-right opponent, Marine Le Pen (who is given an outside chance of unseating him) has pledge to stop all new wind and solar development.

But new nuclear won’t help. At the very best, a new reactor could be online by 2035, although France’s recent experience with massive cost over-runs and delays would put a major question mark over that being achieved.  

French baseload and peak prices soar due to a combination of massive outages of French nuclear power plants, cold weather and inefficient heating

France pays the steep cost of inflexible and ageing nuclear as electricity prices soar — RenewEconomy

The common refrain among critics of wind and solar is to blame their “variability” or “intermittency” for soaring electricity prices as Europe wrestles with gas shortages worsened by the war in Ukraine. But France, the nuclear “pin-up” country for the anti-renewables brigade, is not faring so well either.

Over the weekend, the key “day ahead” prices of electricity in France surged to unprecedented levels. On Friday, the futures price for “baseload” for wholesale French electricity price hit the eye-watering level of €714 a megawatt hour ($A1050/MWh).

It didn’t get much better by Sunday, when the day-ahead price for Monday settled at €515/MWh ($A758/MWh), which is the predicted average price over a 24-hour period. The price for peak electricity between 8am and 9am was €2,987/MWh ($A4,400/MWh).

The prices for both baseload and peak prices in the rest of the European market were significantly cheaper, and in Germany it was dramatically so.

The main reasons? Both supply and demand. Less than half (30GW) of France’s 64GW of nuclear capacity was available, thanks to planned and unplanned outages, and extended repairs due to corrosion issues in their ageing plants.

The forecast is for cold weather, and many French homes are fired with inefficient, energy hungry electric resistance heating, largely as a result that the French believed they had no reason to be energy efficient because of the their massive investment in nuclear.

“Massive outages of French nuclear power plants, in combination with cold weather and electric (often resistance) heating, are causing a critical situation for electricity supply there tomorrow,” energy analyst Kewes van der Leun tweeted over the weekend.

The French authority called on consumers to reduce their power consumption.

The situation in Europe is similar to the growing “north-side” divide in electricity prices in Australia, identified by the Australian Energy Market Operator, which has noted that since early 2021 average prices in the most heavily coal dependent states of Queensland and NSW are considering higher than elsewhere.

Partly that is due to a lack of transmission (France has similar problems), but also to the inflexibility of baseload, and the desperation of baseload owners to bid up prices when they can to recoup their costs.

Sure, states with high amounts of renewables do experience price spikes, but they tend to be short lived and the average price is significantly lower than so-called “cheap” coal.

The situation in France is not likely to get better any time soon. President Emmanuel Macron has pledge to invest significantly more in nuclear and his far-right opponent, Marine Le Pen (who is given an outside chance of unseating him) has pledge to stop all new wind and solar development.

But new nuclear won’t help. At the very best, a new reactor could be online by 2035, although France’s recent experience with massive cost over-runs and delays would put a major question mark over that being achieved.  

April 4, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics | 3 Comments

Why UK Labour’s green policies are fatally undermined by its ‘nuclear first’ stance

Actually, Labour are worse than the Tories

Dave Toke’s green energy blog,   https://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2022/04/why-labours-green-policies-are-fatally.html

 It is now clear from Labour’s stance in the House of Commons, that nuclear power comes before every thing else. Indeed, aside from Keir Starmer’s emphasis on ‘nuclear first’ attacks on the Government in the House of Commons, Labour’s allegedly massive green energy spending strategy seems likely to be swallowed up almost entirely by its pledge to rush to embrace the Sizewell C development. 

The Treasury knows full well that to get Sizewell C going reasonably quickly the Government will have to commit to a potential bill of £30 billion or more in public spending. This must come, either or both, from hard-pressed energy consumers by adding to their bills, or directly from Treasury coffers. The Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy’s (BEIS) spending plans are closely controlled by the Treasury, and the commitment to Sizewell C will swamp the budget and reduce Labour’s ability to spend on things like insulation and heat pumps to a trickle.

Keir Starmer thinks he has seen a weak point in the Conservative’s energy strategy in that it is finding it difficult to turn the commitment to support Sizewell C into reality. But that’s because funding Sizewell out of a public commitment is likely to present the Government with a crippling financial burden. It is especially crippling because Starmer will refuse to acknowledge the fact that to get Sizewell C going will require the Government to fund a black hole of spending as cost overruns inevitably escalate on the project. 

It’s a cynical ploy on Labour’s part. They know full well that the Government’s difficulties with launching Sizewell C are to do with the sheer financial unviability of new nuclear power, not from any lack of faith in nuclear power on the part of the Government. But apparently, Starmer does not care about this, and it also seems that he takes the green energy lobby for granted in that he expects that it will support him regardless.

But if other Labour commitments to support really big programmes in areas like heat pumps and insulation are to happen, there’s just not enough money going to be made available for them if BEIS’s budgets are swallowed up by the commitment to support Sizewell C.

So how should green energy supporters react to this? Well, there’s plenty of other parties to vote for. Indeed if this Government does actually go ahead and reverse the English planning ban on onshore wind, there’s probably not going to be much difference, in practice, between Labour and Conservatives on energy. Except of course that the Conservative will be more cautious, it seems, on accepting unmanageable commitments to new nuclear power!

April 4, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK Business Secretary Kwarteng boasts about new nuclear plants, but admits that local consent will be needed

Britain could build up to seven new nuclear power stations as part of a
radical expansion of homegrown energy following Vladimir Putin’s invasion
of Ukraine, the Business Secretary has said. In an interview with The
Telegraph,…………………

 but, in the face of significant opposition from ministers and backbenchers, Mr Kwarteng acknowledged: “Anymovement has to have a large measure of local consent.” The Great British
Nuclear delivery body is likely to be a government-owned company

 Telegraph 2nd April 2022

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/02/britain-could-get-seven-new-nuclear-power-stations-2050/

April 4, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Progressive Lawmakers in US and Japan Demand No-First-Use Policy on Nukes   

Progressive Lawmakers in US and Japan Demand No-First-Use Policy on Nukes   Andrea Germanos, Common DreamsTRUTHOUT, April 3, 2022  ,

Dozens of progressive lawmakers in the United States and Japan are urging President Joe Biden to make a “sensible” shift and commit the U.S. to a policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons “at any time or under any circumstances.”

The demand, which is also directed at Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, came in a letter dated Friday.

The effort was led by lawmakers including Congressional Progressive Caucus chair U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as well as Progressive Caucus of Japan chair and Diet House of Representatives member Masaharu Nakagawa.

………. Biden last month signed off on his administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, a policy which, to the disappointment of nonproliferation advocates, walks back his 2020 campaign promise of no-first-use. The NPR, according to U.S. officials, instead leaves open the possible use of nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear warfare.

But, the lawmakers stressed in their letter, “it is never too late to commit to a no-first-use policy.”

Addressing the “nuclear umbrella” security alliance between the two nations, the letter states: “A no-first-use policy would not weaken the U.S. ability to protect Japan and itself from a nuclear attack. That protection is based on the promise of U.S. nuclear retaliation, not on the ability to strike first. In fact, a no-first-use policy would increase protection against a nuclear attack by reducing doubt, miscalculation, and the possibility of an accidental nuclear launch.”

Additionally, “a U.S. declaration stating that it would never start a nuclear war, supported by Japan, would breathe new life into international efforts to reduce and eventually eliminate the danger of nuclear war,” the lawmakers assert. “This is especially important at a time when tensions between the nuclear-weapons-possessing states, especially between the United States and China, are increasing.”………………. https://truthout.org/articles/progressive-lawmakers-in-us-and-japan-demand-no-first-use-policy-on-nukes/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=5334fde3-bc8a-46eb-8ce3-25388edd0656

April 4, 2022 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

UK’s energy security strategy delayed, as Cabinet split on nuclear power, and the Regulated Asset Base plan to pay for it.

Disagreements between Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak over the cost of
investment in new nuclear power stations have forced the government to
again delay its energy security strategy. The prime minister promised to
publish the strategy this month after Russia invaded Ukraine. Its
publication has been repeatedly put back amid cabinet disagreements over
fracking, onshore wind and the extent of government support for energy
efficiency projects.

Senior sources told The Times that while most issues
had been settled, disagreements between No 10 and the Treasury over the
extent to which new nuclear power should feature in the plan caused the
latest delay. Last week Johnson told nuclear industry bosses that the
government wanted the UK to get 25 per cent of its electricity from nuclear
power, requiring up to six new large-scale stations.

Sunak is understood to
be concerned at the cost of such a commitment, arguing it represents poor
value and would lead to substantial long-term increases in energy bills. He
is thought to be pushing Johnson to limit the government’s commitment to
two plants on top of one being built at Hinkley Point.

The Treasury’s
argument has been boosted by the National Infrastructure Commission that
has warned large-scale nuclear power plants are “incredibly difficult to
deliver on short timescales”. It has pointed out that even if the
government gave the go-ahead for more nuclear power stations and they took
as long as the Hinkley Point C project is expected to take, they would not
come online until the mid-2040s.

They have urged ministers to look at
“alternatives” that are more likely to be deliverable at scale in the
next 15 years. Ministers are legislating for a new model to fund nuclear
power plants to make them attractive to investors. But critics say the
regulated asset system would place the burden for delays and cost overruns
on consumers and increase energy bills. Supporters of new nuclear power,
including Johnson and Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, argue that
investing now is a “no regret” policy as demand for electricity is
forecast to double in the transition to net zero. It is understood the
strategy is now due next week. If that slips, the Easter recess and rules
on what the government can say before the May elections could push it
beyond the Queen’s Speech. 

Times 29th March 2022 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cabinet-split-on-nuclear-power-delays-uk-energy-strategy-nmfznj377

March 31, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer srongly resisting Boris Johnson’s push for costly nuclear power.

Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s nuclear fallout sparks fresh delays to
UK energy security strategy. The Prime Minister is pushing for six to seven
new large nuclear power stations, but the Chancellor is concerned about the
massive cost. The proposals are being strongly resisted by the Treasury,
with the Chancellor concerned that the vast investment in nuclear would not
provide the taxpayer with value for money.

It has meant that the energy
package has been kicked further down the road, despite Mr Johnson having
previously pledged to publish the proposals at the start of the month. The
plans are also expected to include ways to produce more energy from
renewables, and increase North Sea oil and gas production. The Prime
Minister’s spokesman denied that they were being delayed because of a
disagreement, instead stating that it was “important we get these things
right”.

 iNews 28th March 2022

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-nuclear-stand-off-delays-uk-energy-security-strategy-1544443

March 31, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Spending £4bn on a new nuclear station at Sizewell will not solve the government’s energy problems

Spending £4bn on a new nuclear station at Sizewell will not solve the government’s energy problems

Instead of sensible short-term measures to help those facing energy poverty, the government is focusing on a technology with a track record of failure Prospect Magazine 

ByNick Butler March 30, 2022In the face of surging energy prices and the prospect of more problems as Europe turns off Russian gas supplies, the UK government is struggling to find a coherent energy policy. The latest move, a £4bn investment in the proposed new nuclear station at Sizewell, is both a mistake and an irrelevance. Private investors who are being asked to stump up the majority of the £20bn total cost should politely decline the offer

……………………………………………………………..There are no instant solutions but on and offshore wind and solar power could be increased relatively quickly at a reasonable cost. The government could also accelerate its investment in developing the crucial technology for energy storage. This would capture more of the power produced by every wind turbine and limit the need for back-up plants (usually requiring more gas) to deal with the times when the wind is not blowing. On top of this, direct support for simple measures to enable people to use energy more efficiently would limit demand and cut bills.

Instead of such sensible short-term measures, ministers have chosen to focus on a technology which has a track record of failure and which, even if it could be made to work, will take at least a decade to provide any new electricity supplies………….
Of all the available options, however, the choice of EDF’s European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) technology is the worst from any perspective.

In 2009, EDF promised investors and the government at the time that the EPR to be built at Hinkley would produce power at a cost of less than £50 per MWhr. By Christmas 2017, we were told Hinkley would be onstream and providing the power to cook our Christmas turkeys. We were the turkeys for believing such claims.

Hinkley is still being built and 2027 now looks like the earliest date for production to begin. In France, the comparable EPR development at Flamanville—which was due onstream in 2013—is still unfinished, having experienced a series of crucial technical problems. In both cases the costs have overrun the original budgets by many billions. 

Hinkley, if it ever comes onstream, will charge consumers £92.50 per MWhr index linked from 2013 when the deal was agreed. While the costs of renewables such as offshore wind have fallen dramatically over the last decade, the costs of nuclear power from Hinkley have continued to rise. After almost a decade of inflation, that price has already risen to around £110. Who knows what it will be in 2027?………….. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/spending-4bn-on-a-new-nuclear-station-at-sizewell-will-not-solve-the-governments-energy-problems

March 31, 2022 Posted by | ENERGY, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Boris Johnson beholden to the nuclear industry. That’s going to cost UK bigtime – Chancellor Sunak not happy.

Boris Johnson’s flagship energy strategy has been held up over a row
with Rishi Sunak about funding a new generation of up to eight nuclear
power stations costing the public more than £13bn.

The strategy, which has
been delayed for a month, was due to be published this week but has now
been pencilled for 5 April after disagreement about the multibillion-pound
cost of new nuclear plants and amid ongoing tensions between the prime
minister and his chancellor, as well as the wider cabinet.

Johnson has told the nuclear industry that he wants 25% of electricity generation to come
from nuclear power by 2050, up from 16% now. Whitehall sources told the
Guardian this shift could require the building of about eight new nuclear
power stations. Draft targets suggest ministers are looking at 30GW of
nuclear power capacity, meaning a huge building programme would be needed,
as capacity is due to fall to 3.6GW as plants are decommissioned.

Of the eight UK plants currently in operation, all but one are due to be switched
off by 2030. Each new plant would require the government to take a minority
stake in the project to reduce the risk to developers, and substantial cash
outlay to encourage investment.

Despite Johnson’s keenness for new
nuclear power, Sunak is concerned about the cost to the taxpayer, or extra
costs added to soaring energy bills. The Treasury has already promised
£1.7bn of direct cash for a single large-scale nuclear project – the
£20bn Sizewell C – as well as £120m for a new Future Nuclear Enabling
Fund, which aims to address barriers to entering the sector.

Building eight plants could cost more than £13bn in initial investment costs from the
government if the same amount of investment were to be put in, according to
a Whitehall source. However, the government is also pushing for the nuclear
industry to reduce its build costs.

 Guardian 28th March 2022

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/28/boris-johnsons-energy-strategy-funding-row-with-rishi-sunak

March 31, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Stop Sizewell C campaigners query the government’s planning judgment , especially on costs

Stop Sizewell C campaigners yesterday questioned how the Government can
make an impartial planning judgement on the project if it is intending to
invest in it. The Planning Inspectorate’s report containing its
recommendation on the proposals is expected to be made public in late May.
Previous estimates have put the cost of Sizewell C at about £20bn – less
than the plant being built at Hinkley Point in Somerset – though the figure
could rise with global inflationary pressures.

 East Anglian Daily Times 27th March 2022

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/business/sizewell-c-government-to-take-stake-8785356

March 29, 2022 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Biden administration shuts down Trump-era nuclear cruise missile program

Biden administration kills Trump-era nuclear cruise missile program

After conducting the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review, the Biden administration has chosen to end the sea-launched cruise missile program, a senior Pentagon official said. Breaking Defense

By   VALERIE INSINNAon March 28, 2022   WASHINGTON: In a rare political win for non-proliferation advocates, the Biden administration has cancelled the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear program, one of the two new nuclear weapons greenlit by the Trump administration.

The Pentagon’s fiscal year 2023 budget request, released today, zeroes out funding planned for the so-called SLCM-N program, according to a senior defense official who spoke to reporters about the spending proposal.

“Really this decision came out of the Nuclear Posture Review,” the official said. “There was direction from the president to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our defense strategy. That [decision to cancel SLCM-N] was a component.”

The determination is the latest in a back-and-forth spanning multiple administrations about the utility of a nuclear-armed cruise missile that could be launched from destroyers or Virginia-class attack submarines that typically use conventional weapons.

The Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review called on the Navy to sunset the nuclear-version of its Tomahawk cruise missile, which was retired by 2013, according to the Federation of American Scientists.………………………..

Despite the cancellation of SLCM-N, funding for other nuclear programs flourished in the FY23 request.

When asked about the fate of the W76-2, the senior defense official responded that there is “no change there,” hinting that the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review — due to be released in the coming weeks — will continue to support the low-yield warhead.According to a department fact sheet on the budget, the Pentagon requested a total of $34.4 billion across the nuclear enterprise for FY23, including $4.8 billion for nuclear command, control and communications.The Navy requested $6.3 billion for the Columbia-class submarine, its leg of the nuclear triad.

Meanwhile, the Air Force is also modernizing its two components of the triad, asking $5 billion for the B-21 bomber program and $3.6 billion for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program that will replace Minuteman III intercontinental missiles https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/biden-administration-kills-trump-era-nuclear-cruise-missile-program

March 29, 2022 Posted by | depleted uranium, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Nearly half of Americans concerned about nuclear war amid Russia-Ukraine invasion


Nearly
half of Americans concerned about nuclear war amid Russia-Ukraine invasion
by: The Associated Press via Nexstar Media Wire

Mar 28, 2022  WASHINGTON (AP) — Russia’s war on Ukraine has most Americans at least somewhat worried that the U.S. will be drawn directly into the conflict and could be targeted with nuclear weapons, with a new poll reflecting a level of anxiety that has echoes of the Cold War era.

Close to half of Americans say they are very concerned that Russia would directly target the U.S. with nuclear weapons, and an additional three in 10 are somewhat concerned about that, according to the new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Russian President Vladimir Putin placed his country’s nuclear forces on high alert shortly after the Feb. 24 invasion.

Roughly nine in 10 Americans are at least somewhat concerned that Putin might use a nuclear weapon against Ukraine, including about six in 10 who are very concerned……… https://www.wfxrtv.com/news/russia-ukraine-conflict/nearly-half-of-americans-concerned-about-nuclear-war-amid-russia-ukraine-invasion/

March 29, 2022 Posted by | public opinion, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point C nuclear project faces mor.e delays, increased costs

Hinkley Point C faces more delays amid Ukraine crisis. Developer EDF warns
war may trigger even higher costs for Britain’s flagship nuclear power
station. The UK’s £23bn new flagship nuclear power plant is at risk of
becoming more expensive and being plagued by delays as its developer EDF
blamed challenges including the conflict in Ukraine.

EDF is carrying out a
“new comprehensive review” of the costs and timeframes of Hinkley Point
C, which it is building in Somerset with updates expected in the summer.
The majority French state-owned company had already raised cost estimates
in 2017, 2019 and again in 2021 amid the pandemic, with the project
currently set to cost between £22bn and £23bn and start generating power
in mid-2026. It was originally forecast to cost £18bn.

The developers have
to foot the bill for cost overruns at the project, but it comes as EDF is
in talks with the UK Government about building a second new power plant,
Sizewell C in Suffolk, which could see households take on more risk for
overruns.

The Prime Minister is believed to want nuclear power to supply
about a quarter of Britain’s electricity by 2050. That could imply about
six large stations similar to Hinkley will be needed by 2050. In a sign of
its commitment to the technology, the Government is planning to take a 20pc
equity stake in the Sizewell C project.

In documents filed with French
financial authorities, EDF said of Hinkley Point C: “Due to the
difficulties encountered by the project, notably on civil performance and
marine works, and the increase in risks such as the Ukrainian conflict,
Brexit, Covid, supply chain disruption and inflation, a new comprehensive
review to update the costs and schedule estimates announced in January 2021
is underway and is expected to be finalised by summer 2022.” 

Telegraph 27th March 2022https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/03/27/hinkley-point-c-faces-fresh-cost-overrun-ukraine-crisis/

March 29, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Ukraine war – the Nazi factor

Make Nazism Great Again   https://www.opednews.com/articles/Make-Nazism-Great-Again-by-Pepe-Escobar-Azov-Battalion_Nazis_War-In-Ukraine-220325-46.html

By Pepe Escobar  , 25 Mar 22,  

The supreme target is regime change in Russia, Ukraine is just a pawn in the game – or worse, mere cannon fodder.

All eyes are on Mariupol. As of Wednesday night, over 70% of residential areas were under control of Donetsk and Russian forces, while Russian Marines, Donetsk’s 107th batallion and Chechen Spetsnaz, led by the charismatic Adam Delimkhanov, had entered the Azov-Stal plant – the HQ of the neo-Nazi Azov batallion.

Azov was sent a last ultimatum: surrender until midnight – or else, as in a take no prisoners highway to hell.

That implies a major game-changer in the Ukrainian battlefield; Mariupol is finally about to be thoroughly denazified – as the Azov contingent long entrenched in the city and using civilians as human shields were their most hardened fighting force.

There’s no intention whatsoever in Washington to facilitate a peace plan in Ukraine – and that explains Comedian Zelensky’s non-stop stalling tactics. The supreme target is regime change in Russia, and for that Totalen Krieg against Russia and all things Russian is warranted. Ukraine is just a pawn in the game – or worse, mere cannon fodder.

This also means that the 14,000 deaths in Donbass for the past 8 years should be directly attributed to the Exceptionalists. As for Ukrainian neo-Nazis of all stripes, they are as expendable as “moderate rebels” in Syria, be they al-Qaeda or Daesh-linked. Those that may eventually survive can always join the budding CIA-sponsored Neo-Nazi Inc. – the tawdry remix of the 1980s Jihad Inc. in Afghanistan. They will be properly “Kalibrated” city and using civilians as human shields were their most hardened fighting force.

A quick neo-Nazi recap

By now only the brain dead across NATOstan – and there are hordes – are not aware of Maidan in 2014. Yet few know that it was then Ukrainian Minister of Interior Arsen Avakov, a former governor of Kharkov, who gave the green light for a 12,000 paramilitary outfit to materialize out of Sect 82 soccer hooligans who supported Dynamo Kiev. That was the birth of the Azov batallion, in May 2014, led by Andriy Biletsky, a.k.a. the White Fuhrer, and former leader of the neo-nazi gang Patriots of Ukraine.

Together with NATO stay-behind agent Dmitro Yarosh, Biletsky founded Pravy Sektor, financed by Ukrainian mafia godfather and Jewish billionaire Ihor Kolomoysky (later the benefactor of the meta-conversion of Zelensky from mediocre comedian to mediocre President.)

Pravy Sektor happened to be rabidly anti-EU – tell that to Ursula von der Lugen – and politically obsessed with linking Central Europe and the Baltics in a new, tawdry Intermarium. Crucially, Pravy Sektor and other nazi gangs were duly trained by NATO instructors.Biletsky and Yarosh are of course disciples of notorious WWII-era Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, for whom pure Ukrainians are proto-Germanic or Scandinavian, and Slavs are untermenschen.

Azov ended up absorbing nearly all neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine and were dispatched to fight against Donbass – with their acolytes making more money than regular soldiers. Biletsky and another neo-Nazi leader, Oleh Petrenko, were elected to the Rada. The White Fuhrer stood on his own. Petrenko decided to support then President Poroshenko. Soon the Azov battalion was incorporated as the Azov Regiment to the Ukrainian National Guard.

They went on a foreign mercenary recruiting drive – with people coming from Western Europe, Scandinavia and even South America.

That was strictly forbidden by the Minsk Agreements guaranteed by France and Germany (and now de facto defunct). Azov set up training camps for teenagers and soon reached 10,000 members. Erik “Blackwater” Prince, in 2020, struck a deal with the Ukrainian military that would enable his renamed outfit, Academi, to supervise Azov.

It was none other than sinister Maidan cookie distributor Vicky “F**k the EU” Nuland who suggested to Zelensky – both of them, by the way, Ukrainian Jews – to appoint avowed Nazi Yarosh as an adviser to the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Gen Valerii Zaluzhnyi. The target: organize a blitzkrieg on Donbass and Crimea – the same blitzkrieg that SVR, Russian foreign intel, concluded would be launched on February 22, thus propelling the launch of Operation Z.

All of the above, in fact just a quick recap, shows that in Ukraine there’s no difference whatsoever between white neo-Nazis and brown-colored al-Qaeda/ISIS/Daesh, as much as neo-Nazis are just as “Christian” as takfiri Salafi-jihadis are “Muslim”.

When Putin denounced a “bunch of neo-Nazis” in power in Kiev, the Comedian replied that it was impossible because he was Jewish. Nonsense. Zelensky and his patron Kolomoysky, for all practical purposes, are Zio-Nazis.

Even as branches of the United States government admitted to neo-Nazis entrenched in the Kiev apparatus, the Exceptionalist machine made the daily shelling of Donbass for 8 years simply disappear. These thousands of civilian victims never existed.

U.S. mainstream media even ventured the odd piece or report on Azov and Aidar neo-Nazis. But then a neo-Orwellian narrative was set in stone: there are no Nazis in Ukraine. CIA offshoot NED even started deleting records about training members of Aidar. Recently a crappy news network duly promoted a video of a NATO-trained and weaponized Azov commander – complete with Nazi iconography.

Why “denazification” makes sense

The Banderastan ideology harks back to when this part of Ukraine was in fact controlled by the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Russian empire and Poland. Stepan Bandera was born in Austro-Hungary in 1909, near Ivano-Frankovsk, in the – then autonomous – Kingdom of Galicia.

WWI dismembered European empires into frequently non-viable small entities. In western Ukraine – an imperial intersection – that inevitably led to the proliferation of extremely intolerant ideologies.

Banderastan ideologues profited from the Nazi arrival in 1941 to try to proclaim an independent territory. But Berlin not only blocked it but sent them to concentration camps. In 1944 though the Nazis changed tactics: they liberated the Banderanistas and manipulated them into anti-Russian hate, thus creating a destabilization force in the Ukrainian USSR.

So Nazism is not exactly the same as Banderastan fanatics: they are in fact competing ideologies. What happened since Maidan is that the CIA kept a laser focus on inciting Russian hatred by whatever fringe groups it could instrumentalize. So Ukraine is not a case of
“white nationalism” – to put it mildly – but of anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalism, for all practical purposes manifested via Nazi-style salutes and Nazi-style symbols.

So when Putin and the Russian leadership refer to Ukrainian Nazism, that may not be 100% correct, conceptually, but it strikes a chord with every Russian.

Russians viscerally reject Nazism – considering that virtually every Russian family has at least one ancestor killed during the Great Patriotic War. From the perspective of wartime psychology, it makes total sense to talk of “Ukro-nazism” or, straight to the point, a “denazification” campaign.

How the Anglos loved the Nazis

The United States government openly cheerleading neo-Nazis in Ukraine is hardly a novelty, considering how it supported Hitler alongside England in 1933 for balance of power reasons.

In 1933, Roosevelt lent Hitler one billion gold dollars while England lent him two billion gold dollars. That should be multiplied 200 times to arrive at today’s fiat dollars. The Anglo-Americans wanted to build up Germany as a bulwark against Russia. In 1941 Roosevelt wrote to Hitler that if he invaded Russia the U.S. would side with Russia, and wrote Stalin that if Stalin invaded Germany the U.S. would back Germany. Talk about a graphic illustration of Mackinderesque balance of power.

The Brits had become very concerned with the rise of Russian power under Stalin while observing that Germany was on its knees with 50% unemployment in 1933, if one counted unregistered itinerant Germans.

Even Lloyd George had misgivings about the Versailles Treaty, unbearably weakening Germany after its surrender in WWI. The purpose of WWI, in Lloyd George’s worldview, was to destroy Russia and Germany together. Germany was threatening England with the Kaiser building a fleet to take over the oceans, while the Tsar was too close to India for comfort. For a while Britannia won – and continued to rule the waves.

Then building up Germany to fight Russia became the number one priority – complete with rewriting of History. The uniting of Austrian Germans and Sudetenland Germans with Germany, for instance, was totally approved by the Brits.

But then came the Polish problem. When Germany invaded Poland, France and Britain stood on the sidelines. That placed Germany on the border of Russia, and Germany and Russia divided up Poland. That’s exactly what Britain and France wanted. Britain and France had promised Poland that they would invade Germany from the west while Poland fought Germany from the east.

In the end, the Poles were double-crossed. Churchill even praised Russia for invading Poland. Hitler was advised by MI6 that England and France would not invade Poland – as part of their plan for a German-Russian war. Hitler had been supported financially since the 1920s by MI6 for his favorable words about England in Mein Kampf. MI6 de facto encouraged Hitler to invade Russia.

Fast forward to 2022, and here we go again – as farce, with the Anglo-Americans “encouraging” Germany under feeble Scholz to put itself back together militarily, with 100 billion euros (that the Germans don’t have), and setting up in thesis a revamped European force to later go to war against Russia.

Cue to the Russophobic hysteria in Anglo-American media about the Russia-China strategic partnership. The mortal Anglo-American fear is Mackinder/Mahan/Spykman/Kissinger/Brzezinski all rolled into one: Russia-China as peer competitor twins take over the Eurasian land mass – the Belt and Road Initiative meets the Greater Eurasia Partnership – and thus rule the planet, with the U.S. relegated to inconsequential island status, as much as the previous “Rule Britannia”.

England, France and later the Americans had prevented it when Germany aspired to do the same, controlling Eurasia side by side with Japan, from the English Channel to the Pacific. Now it’s a completely different ball game.

So Ukraine, with its pathetic neo-Nazi gangs, is just an – expendable – pawn in the desperate drive to stop something that is beyond anathema, from Washington’s perspective: a totally peaceful German-Russian-Chinese New Silk Road.

Russophobia, massively imprinted in the West’s DNA, never really went away. Cultivated by the Brits since Catherine the Great – and then with The Great Game. By the French since Napoleon. By the Germans because the Red Army liberated Berlin. By the Americans because Stalin forced to them the mapping of Europe – and then it went on and on and on throughout the Cold War.

We are at just the early stages of the final push by the dying Empire to attempt arresting the flow of History. They are being outsmarted, they are already outgunned by the top military power in the world, and they will be checkmated. Existentially, they are not equipped to kill the Bear – and that hurts. Cosmically.

March 28, 2022 Posted by | history, politics, Reference, Ukraine | Leave a comment

France’s nuclear energy output continues to slump

 Falling nuclear output in France has spurred gas demand in the country and
is hampering EU moves to cut dependence on Russian supplies, according to
some analysts. “The underperformance of French nuclear power in the
Ukraine crisis is completely underestimated. The orders of magnitude are
dizzying” one analyst, who wished to remain anonymous, told Montel.

France, with 56 reactors – the world’s second-biggest nuclear
production capacity – has long been viewed as Europe’s powerhouse,
exporting output across the bloc. Now, that picture has changed with the
country’s nuclear availability plunging in recent months to its lowest
level in over 30 years.

Since 2015 France’s annual nuclear output has
slumped by around 100 TWh, TSO figures showed. In 2015, French reactors
generated 417 TWh. This year atomic output is forecast to drop to 295-330
TWh.

 Montel 25th March 2022

https://www.montelnews.com/news/1308826/french-nuclear-slump-hinders-russian-gas-exit–analysts

March 28, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics | Leave a comment

Boris Johnson’s enthusiasm for UK nuclear power should raise huge red flags for Scotland


Boris Johnson’s enthusiasm for UK nuclear power should raise huge red flags for Scotland, 
 BY DOUGLAS CHAPMAN, 27th March  ONLY last week we had the UK Government Energy Minister Greg Hands use the suffering of the Ukrainian people to encourage the Scottish Government to reconsider their opposition to nuclear power as a way of bolstering our UK energy security.

Hands must have missed the memo entitled “Scotland Has Options” detailing the far safer and cheaper alternatives than nuclear power that we have. We are not dependent on Russian gas because we are already self-sufficient in domestic gas. In fact, we supply the rest of the UK with gas from the North Sea. Then there’s the not so small matter of the pillaging of oil and the vast profits that we have lost as Scots thanks to Tory policy. And now, as we accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, we also produce almost 100% of our own electricity from renewables…. (subscribers only)  https://www.thenational.scot/politics/20023807.boris-johnsons-enthusiasm-uk-nuclear-power-raise-huge-red-flags-scotland/

March 28, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment