As renewable energy powers ahead, the UK government’s prospects for funding nuclear power projects look very risky
China’s cash for UK nuclear plants is in doubt https://climatenewsnetwork.net/chinas-cash-for-uk-nuclear-plants-is-in-doubt/
August 16th, 2021, by Paul Brown Cooler Sino-British relations mean China’s cash for UK nuclear plants is at risk
LONDON, 16 August, 2021 − A serious stumbling block now threatens the prospect of China’s cash for UK nuclear plants materialising − and also the likelihood of a successful outcome to COP26, the global climate conference which the British government is due to host later this year.
In order to finance the construction of nuclear stations that are supposed to generate up to 20% of the UK’s electricity, the British government needs Chinese money. Without it, the already prohibitively expensive projects may become completely unaffordable.
Neither the deeply indebted French government-owned company EDF, which is building two stations, each with twin reactors, nor the UK government is prepared to underwrite the entire cost of the projects. This is because of the huge sums required − around £45 billion (US$62bn).
However, the UK government faces severe political pressure to end Chinese involvement, because of the perceived threat of ceding control over vital services such as the electricity supply.
Problematic deal
The problem for Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, is particularly acute as Britain is hosting COP26, this year’s UN climate conference, in Glasgow in November. Relations between the UK and China are already poor, in part because of disputes over democratic freedoms for the people of Hong Kong.
But with China the world’s largest carbon emitter, Johnson needs it onside if he is to have a chance of making COP26 the success it must be to avert catastrophic climate change.
The problem over funding the nuclear programme arises because of a deal struck in 2015 between the then British prime minister, David Cameron, and China’s president Xi Jinping.
That agreed that China would stump up one third of the £23bn ($32bn) cost of the Hinkley C nuclear power station in the West of England, and also pay 20% of the cost of another planned station, Sizewell C, on the east coast. In return the Chinese could then build a nuclear plant of their own design at Bradwell B in Essex, closer to London, and use it as a platform to export their Hualong HPR1000 reactor technology to the rest of the world
To President Xi the cost of helping to fund the French company to build nuclear stations in Britain was outweighed by the advantage of getting Chinese technology validated in the UK as a bridge to future exports.
Six years later, however, with the Hinkley Point project well under way and Sizewell C supposedly close to launch, the British government is now nervous about allowing the Chinese such a strong involvement in the UK’s nuclear secrets and the nation’s power supply.
Its dilemma, though, is that if the UK reneges on its 2015 agreement, then China could abandon both projects, leaving a financial black hole of many billions of pounds. Trades unions are horrified at the potential loss of jobs the possible cancellation of the projects would cause.
One alternative to Chinese funding is a UK nuclear tax which would be paid in advance by electricity users to fund the construction of the power stations. With power bills already due to rise by more than 10% in Britain before the end of 2021, this is unlikely to be an electorally popular solution.
Renewable competition
What will happen is anyone’s guess. Given Johnson’s well-known habit of postponing difficult decisions, and the looming COP26, it is likely that nothing will be announced until the crucial Glasgow talks are over. The French, in anticipation, have already announced that they are postponing the “final investment decision” on Sizewell C until next year.
Meanwhile the renewable energy industry, particularly offshore wind, is powering ahead with a massive construction programme. Its projects will all produce electricity far more cheaply than any of the UK’s proposed new nuclear stations.Last ditch attempts by the nuclear industry to put a green gloss on its proposals by persuading ministers that its spare electricity capacity can be used to make green hydrogen seem unlikely to succeed.Perhaps in time it will become obvious to Johnson that if banning Chinese involvement in British nuclear plants means they end up not being built that will be a bonus, because cheaper renewable energy will soon be available to fill any perceived gap in supply. − Climate News Network
Chinese nuclear power firm CGN could be pushed out of UK’s Bradwell nuclear power project – and then what?
Could CGN be pushed out of the UK’s nuclear industry? The Conservative backwoodsman MPs smell blood on China. They have already reversed Government policy and banned Huawei from involvement in rolling out the fifth generation (5G) of wireless communications networks.
They now intend to stop another Chinese firm, CGN, from showcasing its HPR1000 technology when building a replacement nuclear power station at Bradwell in Essex. The MPs will achieve this by amending the forthcoming National Security and Investment Bill.
Trouble is, CGN already has contracts signed to part-fund nuclear power stations together with Electricité de France, at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk. In both cases, the Chinese have absolutely key engineering roles, with know-how not easily replaced.
The big question is: if CGN were kicked out of Bradwell, whether they would also walk away from the other two projects. Of course in doing so, they would then be in breach of many existing contractual obligations. But, in
such circumstances, good luck with suing the Chinese government.
Electrical Review 16th Aug 2021
Could CGN be pushed out of the UK’s nuclear industry?
President Biden Can Reduce Nuclear Dangers Without Congress
How President Biden Can Reduce Nuclear Dangers Without Congress https://breakingdefense.com/2021/08/how-president-biden-can-reduce-nuclear-dangers-without-congress/
“Biden is sending a clear message: he will take on nuclear issues only as long as they do not undermine his top legislative priorities,” write Tom Collina and Doreen Horschig. By TOM Z. COLLINA and DOREEN HORSCHIG
| With razor-thin majorities in Congress, it is no surprise that the Biden administration has had to set strict priorities for its legislative agenda. The administration’s focus on pandemic relief, infrastructure, voting rights and climate leaves little room to negotiate on other pressing issues. The good news is there’s one top-tier issue on which President Biden can make significant progress without arm-twisting legislators: reducing the risk of nuclear war.The Biden team sees the crucial need to address nuclear threats, and has already taken major steps: it extended the 2010 arms control treaty with Russia, New START, and agreed to talks on additional reductions; it is negotiating in Vienna to revive the 2015 nuclear deal to keep Iran away from the bomb; and it has begun a comprehensive review of US nuclear policy, called the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Notably, none of these steps requires congressional approval, at least not yet. Instead, in areas where Hill support is needed now, the administration has gone out of its way to avoid fights. For example, Biden’s Pentagon budget supports all the new and unnecessary nuclear weapons proposed by the Trump administration. Biden is sending a clear message: he will take on nuclear issues only as long as they do not undermine his top legislative priorities. This approach fails to recognize that preventing nuclear war is not just another political issue. Nuclear weapons are the only threat humanity faces that could end civilization as we know it in a day (climate change will take much longer, though with the same potential impact). Spending billions of dollars on new weapons the United States doesn’t need, like the new $264 billion intercontinental ballistic missile, will only feed an arms race with Russia and China — even if it helps win votes for a bipartisan infrastructure deal. Better roads will not be of much help if the world slides into nuclear catastrophe. Yet even under President Biden’s constrained approach, he can set far-reaching nuclear weapons policies using his extensive executive authority. Presidents enjoy greater control over nuclear policy than almost any other area of government — and Biden should use it.For example, as part of the NPR process, the President can make good on his pledge to limit the role of nuclear weapons. As vice president, Biden said: “I strongly believe we [the United States] have made enough progress that deterring — and if necessary, retaliating against — a nuclear attack should be the sole purpose of the US nuclear arsenal.”Such a “sole purpose” declaration would be a welcome and important shift away from current policy that allows nuclear weapons to be used to deter other types of lesser threats, such as biological or conventional attacks. US conventional superiority can be used in these cases. In particular, Biden should end the Trump policy of threatening the use of nuclear weapons in response to cyberattacks. As damaging as cyber strikes can be, threatening to retaliate with nukes increases the risk of nuclear war, weakens deterrence, and would violate international law in nearly all scenarios. Biden should make it harder to use the most devastating weapons ever created. A sole purpose policy would limit nuclear weapons to one job only: preventing their use by others.Such a policy should include two other important elements: that the United States will not use its nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike (before an adversary launches a suspected attack) or on warning of attack (before a reported attack arrives). These launches would dangerously increase the risk of starting nuclear war by mistake in response to bad intelligence or a false alarm. The United States has made both types of mistakes before and could do so again.Skeptics state that a US sole purpose policy would undermine the confidence of allies in extended deterrence. But extended deterrence is not based on meeting all threats with nuclear war. The United States should deter conventional attacks with conventional weapons and nuclear attacks with nuclear weapons. The Biden administration can find ways to reassure allies without giving them veto power over US policy .A second concern of critics is that the United States could not make sole purpose credible as adversaries and allies alike would not trust such a declaratory policy. Critics have a point, which is why to show that it practices what it preaches, the United States would have to make doctrinal and operational changes. These including adopting a less threatening nuclear posture, eliminating first-strike postures, preemptive capabilities, and other destabilizing warfighting strategies. This would signal restraint in alert levels of deployed systems, targeting, and launch-on-warning. Joe Biden, as a senator, vice president and presidential candidate, has consistently promoted a more limited role for nuclear weapons. Now that he has the power of the presidency, he must follow through—and he can without undermining his crucial congressional agenda. Now is the time for bold action, and Biden has the chance to create a lasting legacy on nuclear matters.Tom Z. Collina is director of policy at Ploughshares Fund. He is co-author of The Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump. Doreen Horschig, PhD is the current Roger L. Hale Fellow at the Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation. She studies nuclear policy, specifically norms contestation, public opinion, and counter-proliferation.  ReplyForward |
Iraq needs energy, but nuclear power is not the answer
Nuclear power won’t fix Iraq’s energy crisis, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Nils Holst | August 18, 2021 On June 29, Iran halted gas and electricity exports to Iraq over nonpayment of fees. The move left millions of Iraqis without power as temperatures soared to more than 120 degrees, turning cities into ovens and throwing the embattled government of Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi into yet another political firestorm. While the Iranian move was clearly designed to increase Tehran’s influence over its neighbor, it also raises questions about Iraq’s proposal last month to restart the country’s civilian nuclear program, once the subject of proliferation concern……………….
On June 29, Iran halted gas and electricity exports to Iraq over nonpayment of fees. The move left millions of Iraqis without power as temperatures soared to more than 120 degrees, turning cities into ovens and throwing the embattled government of Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi into yet another political firestorm. While the Iranian move was clearly designed to increase Tehran’s influence over its neighbor, it also raises questions about Iraq’s proposal last month to restart the country’s civilian nuclear program, once the subject of proliferation concern.
Iraq’s nuclear legacy. Iraq received its first research reactor from the Soviet Union in 1962, and acquired several more over the next two decades. Although these reactors were purportedly developed for peaceful purposes, Iraq launched a covert nuclear weapons program in the early 1970s in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it signed in 1968. Concerned with Iraq’s likely nuclear weapons development, Israel bombed the Osiraq reactor complex in 1981, driving Iraq’s nuclear weapons program underground. Iraq spent the next decade experimenting with different methods to enrich uranium covertly to weapons-grade levels (typically 90 percent uranium 235), along with additional research on nuclear weapons designs.
After the 1991 Gulf War, the United Nations Security Council instructed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to dismantle Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. The IAEA removed all weapons-grade nuclear material from Iraq and destroyed or disabled the country’s nuclear facilities. Iraq was reluctant to cooperate with international inspectors, however, which, coupled with then-President Saddam Hussein’s tendency to exaggerate his country’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities, led US intelligence agencies to incorrectly assess that Iraq was hiding a nuclear weapons program. This assessment led to the 2003 US invasion, after which it was discovered that Hussein had not, in fact, restarted the program.
The Iraqi government made efforts to conform to international nonproliferation norms in the post-Hussein era. Iraq ratified the IAEA Additional Protocol in 2012, giving the IAEA greater insight into the country’s nuclear activities, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 2013. The UN Security Council lifted restrictions on Iraq’s nuclear industry in 2010. Current and former government officials have routinely floated the idea of using nuclear power to solve the country’s crippling energy shortages,
which leave large parts of the country without power during the hot summer months, a major cause of political unrest in recent years.
In June, Kamal Hussein Latif, chairman of the Iraqi Radioactive Sources Regulatory Authority, said the Iraqi government is currently in talks with Russia’s Rosatom about a $40 billion plan to build eight nuclear reactors. Latif also said Iraq discussed the plan with French, American and South Korean officials. Rosatom has secured contracts to construct nuclear reactors with several of Iraq’s neighbors, including Turkey, Iran, Jordan, and Egypt, although the contract with Jordan later fell through.
The $40 billion question. Part of Iraq’s nation-building strategy is ensuring greater access to electricity, and Baghdad sees nuclear power as an attractive way to address this challenge. The proposed eight-reactor plan would provide the country with a steady 11 gigawatts of power, bridging the gap between supply and demand even during the hottest part of the year. Iraq would reduce its reliance on Iranian gas, free up more of its hydrocarbons for export, and limit its dependence on carbon-based fuel generally. Nuclear power could also boost the legitimacy of al-Kadhimi’s government, and potentially rehabilitate Iraq’s image as an upstanding member of the civilian nuclear community.
There are some problems with this plan, though. Establishing and maintaining nuclear facilities would impose a large financial burden on a government already struggling to provide basic services to its citizens. Declining oil prices in 2020 forced Iraq to dip into its foreign reserves to pay public-sector salaries, and to shelve a much smaller plan to repair and upgrade the country’s dilapidated transmission and distribution network. And don’t forget the $4 billion Iraq owes Iran in unpaid utility bills, the cause of the most recent blackouts sweeping the country.
Even with favorable terms, a $40 billion project would be hard to justify given the government’s difficulty meeting its current financial obligations.
Compounding the affordability problem is the fact that about two thirds of generated power isn’t paid for, due to theft or unmetered connections. The government already heavily subsidizes electricity costs, with customers only paying for about 10 percent of the actual cost of the electricity they use. As a result, the Ministry of Electricity needs $12 billion per year to balance the books. Adding nuclear energy to the mix would push the ministry even deeper into the red, depending on how much financing Iraq could get for the project.
Proliferation is another major concern. The Iraqi power grid has weathered 35 terror attacks so far this year. Introducing nuclear technology would increase the risk of nuclear material falling into terrorist hands, either through a direct attack on a nuclear facility or via a corrupt government official. Given the country’s existing abundant energy resources, Iraq’s neighbors may suspect a civilian nuclear program is once again a cover story for weapons development. With other regional states like Turkey and Saudi Arabia toying with the idea of nuclear weapons, the appearance of seemingly unaffordable reactors in Iraq could be the straw that breaks the back of the already overburdened camel that is nonproliferation in the Middle East. Uncertainty over what happens if the Iran nuclear deal is not renewed, or renewed but expires in a few years, adds to this danger.
Iraq needs energy, but nuclear power is not the answer. In the short term, Iraq must rebuild its broken transmission and distribution system, overhaul the Ministry of Electricity’s fee collection system, and remove bottlenecks in the gas pipeline network to improve generation capacity. In the medium term, the country can encourage renewable energy use and diversify its energy mix by expanding solar power projects and refurbishing existing hydroelectric facilities. These infrastructure projects will ensure Iraq has reliable and consistent power generation in the long term, and be a better use of resources than an unnecessary, budget-busting prestige project. https://thebulletin.org/2021/08/nuclear-power-wont-fix-iraqs-energy-crisis/
Exelon Prepares to Shutter Illinois Nuclear Plants
Exelon is a profitable corporation: the latest SEC filings show its CEO, Chris Crane, was compensated to the tune of more than $14 million.
the Illinois Chamber of Commerce is skeptical of another Exelon bailout.
“We become very concerned when a profitable company seeks to lock in profits through the Illinois General Assembly, when those profits are going to be paid for by ratepayers,” said Alec Messina with the chamber’s Energy Council.
And critics of nuclear energy say Exelon’s threats are akin to ransom.
Exelon Prepares to Shutter Illinois Nuclear Plants, wttw, August 17, 2021 Illinois legislators may be back in Springfield soon for another summer special session, to try once again to pass a massive energy package that thus far has proven elusive.
The result – be it passage of a new law, or a continued stalemate — will impact everything from Illinois’ role in climate change to your energy bill.
But the stakes are particularly high in one northern Illinois town.
Byron, Illinois – about 11 miles outside of Rockford — has had various identities since its founding in 1849. It’s been home to canning plants, railroad stops and a milk depot.
Mayor John Rickard says all of those have come and gone. But since 1985, Byron has had a new identity: It’s home to a pair of nuclear generators…………….
“We’re preparing right now to shut down these reactors forever,” Hanson said. “That means shutting the plant down, turning the turbines off, the generators off, shutting down the reactor.”……..
Property taxes from the nuclear plant comprise a whopping 74% of the district’s budget — some $19 million that would be difficult, if not impossible, to replace.
The next few weeks will determine whether it’s a reality Byron will have to face.
Exelon executives say they have no choice, and they’re preparing employees at the station for that possibility…….
The Chicago-based corporation has 21 reactors at a dozen sites nationwide. Nearly half are in Illinois.
Exelon is a profitable corporation: the latest SEC filings show its CEO, Chris Crane, was compensated to the tune of more than $14 million.
But due in part to energy market particulars and cheap natural gas prices, Exelon says its Byron and Dresden stations are losing money.
It’s not just Exelon that says so. The state commissioned a study and found that while they could be profitable in the future, “Byron and Dresden do face real risk of becoming uneconomic in the near term.”
Exelon is moving to close them (in energy parlance, “retire” the plants, decades ahead of their scheduled retirement) unless the Illinois legislature comes through.
A proposal floated in the statehouse would have ratepayers — as in, anyone who uses and pays for electricity in Illinois — pay a subsidy to keep them open. It would take the form of an extra charge on your electric bill, worth nearly $700 million, that Exelon would use to keep the plants open for at least the next five years.
It’s a big ask, especially considering what happened last July, when Exelon subsidiary Commonwealth Edison was charged with bribery.
Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan — repeatedly referenced in court documents as “Public Official A” — has denied any knowledge of a bribery scheme but helped steer through legislation that helped ComEd.
Exelon benefitted too, by way of a law that currently has electricity customers paying a subsidy for two of its other Illinois plants, in Clinton and the Quad Cities……..
the Illinois Chamber of Commerce is skeptical of another Exelon bailout.
“We become very concerned when a profitable company seeks to lock in profits through the Illinois General Assembly, when those profits are going to be paid for by ratepayers,” said Alec Messina with the chamber’s Energy Council.
And critics of nuclear energy say Exelon’s threats are akin to ransom.
“Exelon first started what we’ve dubbed the nuclear hostage crisis. It’s a pattern where a utility will for whatever reasons threaten closure, which gets the workers very upset, then the local community whose tax base depends on it gets upset, they pressure their legislators, and then the legislators grant bailouts,” said Dave Kraft, head of the Nuclear Energy Information Service.
Kraft said rather than continuing to support nuclear energy, Illinois needs to redouble its commitment to wind and solar……….
Public comment period regarding Bradwell nuclear project is drawing to its end.
After nearly four years, just one month remains for members of the public
to comment on the reactor technology for the proposed nuclear power station
at Bradwell B. The China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) and the French
power company EDF, through their joint venture company General Nuclear
System Limited, initiated the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process of
the proposed reactor in January 2017.
The public comment process, allowing
the public to provide feedback on the UK HPR1000 reactor technology planned
for use at Bradwell B, opened in November 2017 and is due to finish on
Friday, 17 September 2021. Since it began, a range of concerns have been
raised, including those related to climate change, safety and technical
questions.
Maldon Nub News 16th Aug 2021
The French nuclear complex — Macron’s love letter to the nuclear industry
Macron’s love letter to the nuclear industry
The French nuclear complex — Beyond Nuclear International The French nuclear complex https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2021/08/15/the-french-nuclear-complex/
August 15, 2021 by beyondnuclearinternationa
The all too easy alliance between the civil and military sectors
From the Swiss Energy Foundation
...et sans nucléaire militaire, pas de nucléaire civile (“and without the military nuclear sector, no civilian nuclear sector”). These were the words of French head of state, Emmanuel Macron, during his visit at the end of the year to Le Creusot, a hotspot of the French nuclear industry. Indeed, the civil and military uses of nuclear energy were, are, and will remain, inextricably linked. This is exemplified by the French reactor research project NUWARD.
The year 2020 ended with a declaration of love from Emmanuel Macron to the French nuclear industry: “Our energy and ecological future depends on nuclear energy”. He added: “Our economic and industrial future depends on nuclear energy. ” Macron addressed these words in a well-received speech delivered at Le Creusot, Burgundy, the very heart of the nuclear industry. The industrial town of Le Creusot is an important production site for components for nuclear power plants as well as for nuclear weapons systems for military use.
The nuclear industry in crisis
However, the last few years have not been a time of joy for the French nuclear industry, but rather a time of crisis. To stay with Le Creusot: The reactor forge facility there, which among other things manufactures the safety-relevant components for nuclear power plants, drew attention to itself in 2016 with a series of irregularities: it emerged that, for years, there had been systematic forgeries. Faulty forged parts were produced. Instead of discarding the rejects, reports were falsified and quality assurance undermined. France’s new-build project, the Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR), was also affected. The former showcase project sank steadily into a billion-dollar grave.
Along with the Le Creusot scandal, numerous other miscalculations and breakdowns cast a bad light on the French nuclear industry. The construction of the new EPR in Flamanville, as well as other construction projects abroad, made headlines with years of delays and cost explosions. The builder is the French quasi-state nuclear giant EDF. It did not want to bear the cost debacle alone, but also pointed the finger at EPR nuclear giant Areva. However, since 2018, Areva has ceased to exist.
To prevent bankruptcy, the state has virtually ransomed Areva by means of subsidies. The group was split into the state-owned company New Areva (now “Orano”), responsible for the fuel cycle business, and the reactor construction division Areva NP (now “Framatome”), which also includes the Le Creusot forge. Meanwhile, EDF, 80% of which is state-owned, is struggling with enormous debts —some 41 billion euros at the end of 2019, according to the French Ministry of Economy.
Nuclear DNA – French identity
So the task at hand is to shore up the once-radiant sector in crisis. And Macron’s assurances to Framatome and Co. came at the just right time. On the one hand, there are economic interests, as just explained with the problem child EDF, on the other hand, there is also the French identity and military capacity, founded on France’s nuclear power status. Since the post-war period, France’s self-image has been based to a large extent on the nuclear sector. In Le Creusot, Macron not only praised those present, he also announced the construction of a new aircraft carrier —nuclear-powered, of course.
The NUWARD project: an exemplary case
Among those present at Le Creusot, in addition to Framatome, were managers from EDF, Orano and the Naval Group defense contractor. All of the players are a hybrid of government and private funding, civilian and military exploitation interests. And with the exception of Orano, they are all involved in the new French Small Modular Reactor (SMR) project called NUWARD. The nuclear industry is pinning its hopes on “small modular reactors”.
The project for the French variant NUWARD started about ten years ago, when the contractors EDF, Naval Group (then DCNS), the state nuclear and energy research center CEA (Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives) and the then Areva were commissioned with initial feasibility studies. TechnicAtome (formerly Areva TA), a specialist in marine nuclear propulsion systems, was also brought in for the pre-conceptual design. Finally, in September 2019, the partners presented their collaborative NUWARD project at the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
The parties involved emphasize the benefits of NUWARD as an export commodity in the global energy market: it is necessary to meet the increasing demand for energy in the context of rising population and climate policy challenges. To wit: Nuclear energy is again praised as a (supposedly) climate-friendly solution. The small NUWARD with a capacity of about 340 MW is intended as a complement to the EPR with a capacity of about 1700 MW.
But civilian applications are hardly ever the only ones. The new aircraft carrier, which is to replace the retired “de Gaulle” from 2038, will be nuclear-powered. The experts responsible for this are TechnicAtome and Naval Group. The new generation of French submarines, currently being developed under the so-called Barracuda program with the same stakeholders, also relies on nuclear propulsion. The suspicion is that TechnicAtome and Naval Group’s interests in NUWARD are aligned on this. According to ASAF, the French Army’s support association, the latter enjoys the opportunity to acquire knowledge that can later be applied in the military field.
From research to armament leader
A deeper look at the project partners involved and their activities shows that the mixture of civil-military engagement is by no means new. For example, the defense industry group Naval Group, the CEA and TechnicAtome are involved in the Barracuda project mentioned above. Naval Group itself, which calls itself the “European leader in naval defense”, is majority-owned by the French government and one-third by the defense contractor Thales Group (which in turn is about one-third owned by the government). In addition to its largely military projects, the group is also active in the civilian sector, as in the case of the EPR4 or through offshore wind energy projects.
Naval Group, meanwhile, is a 20% shareholder in TechnicAtome, whose core business is nuclear submarine propulsion. In addition, the corporation pursues civil nuclear activities. For example, it was responsible for safety systems at Hinkley Point (UK) at the EPR. TechnicAtome was spun off in the 1970s from the state research institute CEA, which remains a shareholder today, along with the state and EDF (itself 85% state-owned).
The CEA can be seen as a symbol of the interdependence of the military-civilian nuclear establishment. CEA, from the French acronym for Atomic Energy Commission, was founded after World War II and oversees all French nuclear research, both military and civilian. To this day, the research institution is wholly owned by the government. Of note are the unique privileges the CEA enjoys as a public agency: it is accountable for its decisions solely to the French president and is not subject to the same financial controls as other government agencies.
France Nucléaire – Quo vadis?
For the French head of state, abolishing the civil-military “double dimension” makes no sense at all. Rather, it illustrates the coherence between strategic autonomy and energy independence. And this is now being proudly presented in public again, as in Le Creusot.
It is therefore not only worthwhile for the French state to support the struggling civilian nuclear industry, but it seems almost imperative. It does so not only through share packages (see Areva). In addition, Macron is lobbying Brussels to give nuclear energy more prominence in the EU’s climate strategy, with the hope of receiving money from the Green New Deal pots. This would also help the enforcement of the planned national subsidies vis-à-vis the EU.
State aid en masse is thus intended to save civil nuclear power in France, because the French presidential palace cannot afford to — and will not — do away with the civilian part. As Macron revealed in his closing homage to nuclear power at Le Creusot: “Our strategic future, notre status de grande puissance, depends on nuclear energy”.
The original article in German, can be found here on the Swiss Energy Foundation (SES) website in its Focus France section. We are grateful to the SES for this translation.
Hidden in the U.S. Infrastructure Bill, a fat subsidy for the nuclear industry, and another $50 billion in the offing.
Critics Decry $12 Billion For Nuclear In Infrastructure Bill https://www.upr.org/post/critics-decry-12-billion-nuclear-infrastructure-bill#stream/0, By ERIC TEGETHOFF • AUG 12, 2021 The U.S. Senate has passed a massive infrastructure bill, and buried within the package is $12 billion for the nuclear industry, but critics said the money would be better spent elsewhere.Half of the money is reserved for nuclear facilities under threat of shutting down due to economic factors. The other half is for research and development, such as on the small modular nuclear reactor model being built in Idaho.
Tim Judson, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said the industry as a whole is struggling, with even the Idaho project being scaled back.
“By propping up the existing reactors and preventing them from being replaced with renewable energy, the nuclear industry’s essentially trying to keep sort of a foothold in the energy system until they can try to ram some of these new reactor projects like the one in Idaho through, if it ever happens,” Judson said.
He hopes the U.S. House makes changes to the investments in nuclear. The industry and some environmental groups have touted nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels as the country moves toward clean energy sources.
Judson noted it is a big deal many nuclear power plants need a bailout, adding it is as if nuclear companies are holding cities and states hostage.
“It’s been this kind of perpetual process of a power plant’s closure being announced, the company demanding a bailout, the state not knowing what else to do, so it gives the bailout,” Judson said. “And this federal subsidy is going to be the same thing. There’s no planning procedure included in this legislation.”
He argued there needs to be more consideration about what to do with old power plants and aging infrastructure.
Judson pointed out another bill in Congress could provide up to $50 billion in subsidies for the industry over the next decade.
According to his organization’s research, it will not mean any new jobs and the money would be more beneficially spent on electricity projects such as renewables, transmission systems and battery storage.
“If you spent that $50 billion on those things, it would create more than 60,000 new jobs,” Judson said. “And that’s more than four times the number of workers that are employed at these nuclear plants that would get bailed out.”
Men, Conservative Party supporters and Brexit-backers more likely to support use of nuclear weapons
Men, Conservative Party supporters and Brexit-backers more likely to support use of nuclear weapons, Mirage News, University of Exeter, 13 Aug 21,
Men, Conservative Party supporters and those who wanted Britain to leave the EU, are more likely to want to retain Britain’s nuclear deterrent, a study shows.
Those who endorse superior military power worldwide as an important foreign policy goal and people who want to protect the transatlantic relationship are also more likely to be in favour of nuclear weapons, according to the research.
Those who voted ‘remain’ in the EU referendum are less likely to support keeping nuclear weapons relative to those who voted to leave the EU. Supporters of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, UKIP, the Green Party, and Plaid Cymru are less likely to support keeping nuclear weapons.
The study, published in the European Journal of International Security, was carried out by Ben Clements, from the University of Leicester, and Catarina Thomson, from the University of Exeter.
Academics used data from the new UK Security Survey to analyse attitudes towards the possession of nuclear weapons among the British public, the majority of who supported retaining nuclear weapons.
Dr Thomson said: “We have found the recurring ‘gender gap’ found on state use of conventional military force extends to Britain’s nuclear force capabilities, with men more in favour of retaining the nuclear deterrent than women.
“Political preferences have a significant role to play in affecting people’s likelihood of supporting of Britain retaining its nuclear weapons. Identifying with political parties with a clear nuclear stance is generally significant in affecting people’s views on the UK nuclear programme.
“Our data suggest that supporters of parties that do not take an anti-nuclear stance, such as the Liberal Democrats or UKIP, are less likely to support keeping nuclear weapons. Those who voted for Britain to remain in the EU are less likely to agree with the statement that the UK should keep its nuclear weapons. This provides further evidence of the potency of views on the Brexit debate for other issues in the post-referendum political landscape, concerning both domestic and external policy.”…………..
The survey was fielded by YouGov between 1– 25 April 2017 (before the official announcement of the snap general election), with a representative sample of 2,002 adults in Britain. The data was weighed by age, gender, social class, region, level of education, how respondents voted at the previous election, how respondents voted at the EU referendum, and their general level of political interest. https://www.miragenews.com/men-conservative-party-supporters-and-brexit-613537/
Conservative British MP opposes ‘nuclear dumping ground’
JILL MORTIMER (Conservative MP for Hartlepool): Plan would turn the town into a ‘nuclear dumping ground’. I am sure that a number of you are already aware of a meeting between Sacha Bedding, Chief Executive of the
Wharton Trust charity, and representatives from the Labour group on Hartlepool Borough Council – I want to take this opportunity to make my position on the proposal to introduce a nuclear waste dump to Hartlepool clear – not on my watch!
I was shocked to hear that these discussions have taken place, and I fully support Ben Houchen – Tees Valley Mayor in
his opposition to such a suggestion. This week myself and Ben have submitted a Freedom of Information request to Hartlepool Borough Council, relating to any correspondence between Staff at Radioactive Waste Management, Staff at The Wharton Trust and the Council, including elected councillors. Whoever is encouraging behind the scenes discussions of something that we believe will have such a devastating impact on the town’s prospects – the people of Hartlepool deserve to know.
Hartlepool Mail 12th Aug 2021
Strong call for New York City to legislate against investment of pension funds into nuclear weapons production
“We call on Speaker Corey Johnson and the City Council to vote and urgently pass Res. 976 and Intro.1621 to divest pension funds from nuclear weapon producers and reaffirm New York City as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. The legislation introduced by Council member Danny Dromm already inspired a historic hearing in City Hall and has the support of a majority of the City Council. As New Yorkers this is our moment to make hope and peace possible for a new generation.”
Nuclear disarmament campaigners press for legislation in New York City on 76th Anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings. Pressenza, 13.08.21 – US, United States – Pressenza New York In a commemoration of the August 6 and August 9, 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that was both somber and spirited, New York City-based nuclear disarmament advocates assembled outside the Municipal Building in downtown New York City. Advocates joined members of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), 2017 Nobel Peace Laureate in honoring New York nuclear disarmament heroes and urging Council Speaker Corey Johnson to reaffirm NYC as a nuclear weapons free zone.
Speakers included Michie Takeuchi, second generation Hiroshima Hibakusha survivor, Robert Croonquist, Hibakusha Stories Project founder, Bud Courtney of the Catholic Worker, Dr. Emily Welty, Director of Peace and Justice Studies at Pace University, Seth Shelden, ICAN representative at the United Nations and Brendan Fay ogranizer with NYCAN (New York Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons).
Dr. Emily Welty reminded the gathering that the site for the Vigil is profound with history, because the development of the atomic bombs began across the street from City Hall at the Manhattan Project headquarters, at 270 Broadway.
In remarks Brendan Fay, Irish gay activist and nuclear disarmament advocate highlighted the legacy of LGBTQ New Yorkers in the global movement for nuclear disarmament.
- Bayard Rustin (1912-1987) highlighted the connection between colonialism, racism and nuclear weapons and traveled to Algeria in 1959 to protest French nuclear testing.
- James Baldwin (1924 –1987) as a member of National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy was among the leading speakers at the 1961 Peace Rally in Washington, DC. He said, “What am I doing here? Only those who would fail to see the relationship between the fight for civil rights and the struggle for world peace would be surprised to see me. Both fights are the same.”
- David McReynolds (1929-2018) was the first openly gay presidential candidate, a socialist and lifelong pacifist. During his 40-year career with the War Resisters League he became an international hero of the nuclear disarmament movement.
- Leslie Cagan (b. 1947) was a lead organizer of the largest disarmament rally in US history, the June 12, 1982 Rally Against the Arms Race.
- Peter Ciccchino (1960-2000) was arrested over two dozen times for peace, for nuclear disarmament, and for housing and human rights.
Fay thanked Council Member Danny Dromm (District 25) for introducing the nuclear divestment legislation in 2019. “Council Member Dromm follows the steps of previous council members including Council President and civil rights leader Paul O’Dwyer (1907 – 1998) who was a strong advocate for nuclear disarmament in City Hall.
Holding a poster of African American Civil rights leader and nuclear disarmament advocate Bayard Rustin,
Fay said, “As LGBTQ+ New Yorkers we join the rest of the human family this August 6th and August 9th in raising our voices to demand a world without nuclear weapons, for the sake of the children, for a future of hope. On this 76th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we say there is no Pride in bomb production. There is no Pride in raising the rainbow flag while investing in weapons of death.”
What of the nuclear weapons New York worker pensions are invested in? They are built to divide, harm, maim, kill. $475 million (0.25%) of New York worker pension funds are currently invested in the production of nuclear weapons. Our worker pensions must no longer be used as weapons of war. We are nurses, doctors, teachers, sanitation workers, firefighters, social workers, artists – our common cause is justice and peace……..
Fay said, “We call on Speaker Corey Johnson and the City Council to vote and urgently pass Res. 976 and Intro.1621 to divest pension funds from nuclear weapon producers and reaffirm New York City as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. The legislation introduced by Council member Danny Dromm already inspired a historic hearing in City Hall and has the support of a majority of the City Council. As New Yorkers this is our moment to make hope and peace possible for a new generation.”…….
Resolution 976 calls on the Comptroller to instruct pension funds to divest from companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons (approximately $475 million dollars) and re-affirms New York City as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.
Introduction 1621 establishes a Nuclear Disarmament Advisory Committee to advise the City Council.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by 122 countries in 2017, makes nuclear weapons comprehensively illegal and became international law on January 22, 2021. https://www.pressenza.com/2021/08/nuclear-disarmament-campaigners-press-for-legislation-in-new-york-city-on-76th-anniversary-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-bombings/
Japanese Nuclear Drama ‘Gift of Fire’ Heads for U.S Theaters
Japanese Nuclear Drama ‘Gift of Fire’ Heads for U.S Theaters Variety, By Patrick Frater 13 Aug 21,
“Gift of Fire,” a fact-based drama film about Japan’s secret nuclear bomb program, will play in U.S. cinemas from November this year. Produced in 8K digital, it opened in Japanese theaters last week, distributed by Aeon and scored a top ten ranking.
Yagira Yuya, the Japanese actor who won the acting prize in Cannes for his role in Koreeda Hirokazu’s “Nobody Knows,” heads the cast. He plays a nuclear scientist who struggles with his conscience while working Japan’s own nuclear weapon effort, a secret program that remained largely unknown until a decade ago.
The film is directed by Kurosaki Hiroshi, whose past work includes multi award-winning “Goldfish” (aka “Hi No Sakana”) and 2011’s “Second Virgin.” It was produced in partnership between Japanese public broadcaster NHK and Los Angeles-based Eleven Arts
Eleven Arts will now handle the U.S. release and has set a launch date of Nov. 12, 2021.
“When I first read the script for Gift of Fire I didn’t know that during WWII, Japan was developing an atomic bomb alongside the rest of the world,” said producer Mori Ko. “Instead of being a grand WWII film, the story focuses on the intimate details of three youthful characters’ lives. They deal with the same struggles as the rest of us, while also taking part in the life-changing scientific developments of the era and a war of epic proportions.”
………… “On one hand, the story reflects the romanticism present when floating on the surface of the ocean and looking up at the starry skies to imagine the vastness of the universe. On the other hand, the story explores the crimes that can be committed in the name of science and discovery,” said writer-director Kurosaki. https://variety.com/2021/film/asia/gift-of-fire-japan-nuclear-drama-yagira-yuya-1235041233/
Utah Taxpayers Association is very wary of Small Nuclear Reactors
Imagine you picked up a gallon of milk that was labeled at $4, but by the time you made it to the cash register the price had gone up. Worse still, there was an automatic agreement that forced you to buy with no guarantee that the lid would ever open or that the price wouldn’t increase again by the time you had to pay. That’s essentially the situation in which UAMPS is putting municipalities.
Imagine you picked up a gallon of milk that was labeled at $4, but by the time you made it to the cash register the price had gone up. Worse still, there was an automatic agreement that forced you to buy with no guarantee that the lid would ever open or that the price wouldn’t increase again by the time you had to pay. That’s essentially the situation in which UAMPS is putting municipalities.
Utah cities shouldn’t gamble on nuclear power https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/8/11/22620772/utah-cities-shouldnt-gamble-with-taxpayer-funds-on-modular-nuclear-power-plant
An Idaho project is a financial risk that is best borne by the private sector. By Rusty Cannon Aug 11, 2021, ”………….. one of our critical missions is to protect taxpayers when it comes to the use of public funds, and we believe strongly that the taxpayers and communities of Utah should not act as venture capitalists for risky bets.
The bet that’s on the table now for Utah municipalities is nuclear. Specifically, it’s a type of nuclear called “small modular,” and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) is recruiting towns and communities around the West to pay for it. The project, if it happens, would be located in Idaho.
Last fall, seven Utah cities from Logan to Lehi wisely withdrew their support for the UAMPS nuclear project due to financial risks that their residents should not be asked to accept. But many municipalities, such as Brigham City, Hyrum, Hurricane, and Washington City, are still gambling with their taxpayers’ dollars.
If modular nuclear power is ready for market, let the private sector show it by putting up its money. Governments ought to stay out of it, particularly when risking public funds.
The participation commitments UAMPS has been getting from Utah communities to buy the power come with required upfront payments from residents for a product that is full of uncertainty. The developer — Oregon-based NuScale — hasn’t built a plant like this before, its design keeps changing, and it’s nearly a decade away from even being potentially operational.
While we still believe the project is risky and that municipalities should withdraw, any investment of public dollars must be done in the open with public scrutiny. Sadly, the information exchange between UAMPS and its potential payers has been opaque. The public receives only a trickle of information, and it’s vague at best.
When we do see information, it’s troubling. For example, the project’s budget has ballooned from an initial $3.1 billion to a more recent estimate of $6.1 billion. It was only recently uncovered that the company that was going to operate the plant, Energy Northwest, backed out in March.
The financial sand is shifting in other ways, as well. In late June, UAMPS suddenly decided to reduce the number of modules at the power plant by half because they’ve struggled to get more communities to commit. That led to a hike in the power price that UAMPS had been promising, putting still-participating municipalities in a bind.
Imagine you picked up a gallon of milk that was labeled at $4, but by the time you made it to the cash register the price had gone up. Worse still, there was an automatic agreement that forced you to buy with no guarantee that the lid would ever open or that the price wouldn’t increase again by the time you had to pay. That’s essentially the situation in which UAMPS is putting municipalities.
Plenty of Utah city council members have listened to their constituents and said “thanks but no thanks.” Bountiful, Kaysville, Murray, Lehi and Heber were some of the largest subscribers to the modular nuclear proposal, but have since bowed out.
However, other communities remain officially interested in this particular power project, and are keeping it in their shopping cart so far. If you reside in these communities, pay attention and watch your wallet. There may still be time to withdraw from the project.
Utah municipalities should remain conservative watchdogs of tax dollars. Say yes to prudent and transparent use of public money. Say no to unproven technology and murky promises that keep shifting. At this point modular nuclear power is a venture, not a product. So let private venture capital come in and pay for it, not Utah taxpayers.
Rusty Cannon is President of the Utah Taxpayers Association
Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger champions inclusion of nuclear power incentive in U.S. Infrastructure Bill.
- Kinzinger-backed Nuclear Power Incentive Included in Senate Infrastructure Bill,
A financial credit program for nuclear power plants has been included in the Senate’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which was approved in the Senate on Tuesday. The program has been championed by Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who has proposed the program in separate legislation in the past.
Kinzinger says he wants some federal help to available to keep nuclear power plants online as two in the 16th Congressional District are slated to close near the end of this year. Exelon, the company who runs the two plants, has said they are seeing a revenue shortfall at power plants in Morris and Byron.
State lawmakers have been trying to negotiate an energy deal that would keep the plants open, but have had some snags. Area lawmakers have said that an agreement is in place for the nuclear portion of the bill.
Joe Biden’s Infrastructure Bill gives $50 billion to bail out the nuclear industry
Nuclear Power Bailout In The Infrastructure Bill https://www.wortfm.org/nuclear-power-bailout-in-the-infrastructure-bill/
AUGUST 11, 2021 BY 8 O’CLOCK BUZZ The bi-partisan infrastructure bill just passed by the U.S. Senate has allotted $50 billion over the next 10 years to bolster the dying nuclear power industry, according to Hannah Smay, Digital Organizer of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. And the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill promises even more, fails to create jobs, reduce carbon, and the Band-Aid approach interferes with the transition to clean energy.
1 This Month
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- October 2026 (19)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
