Chilcot says Britain shirking its responsibilty to help clean up radioactive destruction in Iraq
Chilcot: UK refusing to help clean up Iraq after raining down radioactive shells https://www.rt.com/uk/350804-iraq-chilcot-depleted-uranium/#.V4VPdDurb8w.facebook 12 Jul, 2016 Britain has no intention of cleaning up its deadly radioactive legacy in Iraq or even monitoring the terrifying impact depleted uranium (DU) shells will have on the population in the future, it has been claimed.
Writing in the Ecologist on Tuesday, Doug Weir, who is coordinator of the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW), says that hidden within the Chilcot report is a previously classified military document setting out the UK’s rejection of any duty to cleanse Iraq of DU of unexploded ordnance (UXO).
In it, the clearance of unexploded ordnance and DU is considered and the Ministry of Defence [MoD] argues that it has: “… no long-term legal responsibility to clean up DU from Iraq” Weir writes.
“Instead it proposes that surface lying fragments of DU only be removed on ‘an opportunity basis’ – i.e. if they come across them in the course of other operations.”
This indicates, according to Weir, that the UK has effectively swerved any obligation to clear up after itself in Iraq.
“In other words, the UK’s stance is that chemically toxic and radioactive DU ‘ash’ from spent munitions is strictly the problem of the country in which the munitions were used – in this case Iraq – and that the UK, which fired the DU shells, has no formal responsibility of cleaning up the mess.”
DU ammunition is used in only two UK weapons systems – the Royal Navy’s PHALANX Close-In Weapon System and in the Charm 3 ammunition fired by the Challenger 2 main battle tank.
However, the route to shirking responsibility may not be as easy as the UK government seems to hope. In October, the UN will meet to debate a sixth resolution on DU weapons. It’s a move which will give succor to the government of Iraq, which in 2014 called for the international community to help clean up DU.
Weir remains hopeful that the UN meeting may be able to encourage governments to take responsibility for the use and fallout of the weapons.
“When the United Nations last discussed DU two years ago, 150 governments recognised the need for states to provide assistance to countries like Iraq,” he wrote.
“This October, our Coalition will add our voice to those of the states affected by DU weapons in calling for an end to the use of DU weapons and for the users to finally accept responsibility for their legacy,” he added.
President Obama ready to make policy changes to reduce role of nuclear weapons
Obama plans major nuclear policy changes in his final months, WP By Josh Rogin July 10 The Obama administration is determined to use its final six months in office to take a series of executive actions to advance the nuclear [disarmament] agenda the president has advocated since his college days. It’s part of Obama’s late push to polish a foreign policy legacy that is plagued by challenges on several other fronts.
President Obama announced his drive to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and eventually rid the world of them in his first major foreign policy speech, in Prague in 2009. In his first years, he achieved some successes, such as the New START treaty with Russia, the Nuclear Security Summits and the controversial Iran deal. But progress waned in the past year as more pressing crises commanded the White House’s attention. Now, the president is considering using the freedom afforded a departing administration to cross off several remaining items on his nuclear wish list.
In recent weeks, the national security Cabinet members known as the Principals Committee held two meetings to review options for executive actions on nuclear policy. Many of the options on the table are controversial, but by design none of them require formal congressional approval. No final decisions have been made, but Obama is expected to weigh in personally soon.
“As we enter the homestretch of the Obama presidency, it’s worth remembering that he came into office with a personal commitment to pursuing diplomacy and arms control,” deputy national security adviserBen Rhodes told the Arms Control Association on June 6. “I can promise you today that President Obama is continuing to review a number of ways he can advance the Prague agenda over the course of the next seven months. Put simply, our work is not finished on these issues.”
Several U.S. officials briefed on the options told me they include declaring a “no first use” policy for the United States’ nuclear arsenal, which would be a landmark change in the country’s nuclear posture. Another option under consideration is seeking a U.N. Security Council resolution affirming a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. This would be a way to enshrine the United States’ pledge not to test without having to seek unlikely Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The administration is also considering offering Russia a five-year extension of the New START treaty’s limits on deployed nuclear weapons, even though those limits don’t expire until 2021. This way, Obama could ensure that the next administration doesn’t let the treaty lapse. Some administration officials want to cancel or delay development of a new nuclear cruise missile, called the Long-Range Stand-Off weapon, because it is designed for a limited nuclear strike, a capability Obama doesn’t believe the United States needs. Some officials want to take most deployed nukes off of “hair trigger” alert.
The administration also wants to cut back long-term plans for modernizing the nation’s nuclear arsenal, which the Congressional Budget Office reports will cost about $350 billion over the next decade. Obama may establish a blue-ribbon panel of experts to examine the long-term budget for these efforts and find ways to scale it back…….. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/obama-plans-major-nuclear-policy-changes-in-his-final-months/2016/07/10/fef3d5ca-4521-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html
Poland halts nuclear power plans, looks to renewable energy
Polish nuclear capacity will not be built before 2030: PGE -Adam Easton, newsdesk@platts.com
–Edited by Jonathan Loades-Carter, jonathan.carter@spglobal.com Warsaw (Platts)–12 Jul 2016
* PGE may modify nuclear investment
Poland’s largest utility Polska Grupa Energetyczna (PGE) is not giving up its plans to build the country’s first nuclear reactors but the investment may be modified and will not be realized until after 2030, PGE’s chief executive Henryk Baranowski said Tuesday……..
the company was looking at other means of financing the nuclear project after the PiS government, which took office last November, rejected contracts for difference.
“What is certain is that nuclear power cannot be carried out today under a purely market formula. Developing the optimal financing method will require in-depth dialogue. The result will have to be a compromise between the demands of the investors and the needs of the consumers,” he said……
In terms of renewable energy Baranowski said PGE was interested in developing offshore wind in the Baltic Sea.
“An interesting and least talked about technology today is offshore wind. We will continue to prepare to build such capacity in the Baltic despite the high costs. Now we’re calculating the profitability of such investments and we’re analyzing possible financing models,” he said…….http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/warsaw/polish-nuclear-capacity-will-not-be-built-before-26489875
Connecticut lawmaker seeks justice over “stranded nuclear waste”
Connecticut lawmaker pushes nuclear waste bill http://wtnh.com/2016/07/12/connecticut-lawmaker-pushes-nuclear-waste-bill/ By Keith Kountz July 12, 2016 New Haven, Conn. (WTNH)– Connecticut congressman Joe Courtney is part of a bi-partisan group of house lawmakers to introduce a bill to help communities that are struggling with the cost of storing what’s known as ‘stranded nuclear waste’.
The legislation is important to people in Courtney’s district, which includes the former home of the Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant.
The Stranded Nuclear Waste Accountability act of 2016 would help communities cover any losses they’ve racked up associated with the storage of nuclear waste.
In a statement, Courtney says in part that ‘we cannot allow small communities and municipalities across this country to fall into financial distress because of the congressional gridlock which is holding up the establishment of a federal nuclear waste storage facility’.
Democratic Senators naming and blaming the funders of climate science denial
US Senators detail a climate science “web of denial” but the impacts go well beyond their borders
Australians have been both helpers and victims of the fossil fuelled web of climate science denial being detailed in the U.S Senate, Guardian, Graham Readfearn, 12 July 16, By the middle of this week, about 20 Democratic Senators in the US will have stood up before their congress to talk about the fossil fuelled machinery of climate science denial.
The Senators are naming the fossil fuel funders, describing the machinery and calling out the characters that make up a “web of denial”.
“The web is so big, because it has so much to protect,” said the Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who bookended the first evening of speeches.
The senate heard how fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy and the billionaire oil brothers Charles and David Koch had funnelled millions into groups that had spread doubt about the causes of climate change.
In a resolution also being tabled, the upper house will be asked to acknowledge that the fossil fuel industry had done just what the tobacco industry had done – “developed a sophisticated and deceitful campaign that funded think tanks and front groups, and paid public relations firms to deny, counter, and obfuscate peer-reviewed research” and “used that misinformation campaign to mislead the public and cast doubt in order to protect their financial interest.”
Groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Heartland Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and many, many others are under scrutiny for the way they have attacked the science linking fossil fuel burning to climate change while accepting cash from fossil fuel interests.
Whitehouse also took time to describe the large body of work in peer-reviewed journals that have examined the funding, the networks and the tactics of organised climate science denial. Climate science denial is itself a live area of academic research.
But the impact of climate science denial – the decades of policy delays, the confusion among the general public and the deliberate politicization of the science – does not stop at the US border. Continue reading
Republicans trying to roll back the Iran nuclear agreement
Iran Nuclear Deal Faces Triple Threat in Congress on Anniversary http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-12/iran-nuclear-deal-faces-triple-threat-in-congress-on-anniversary Kambiz Foroohar kambizf
-
Three measures seek to derail agreement signed a year ago
-
Iran says it still waiting for full benefits from the accord
Republican lawmakers are pushing three measures to roll back a nuclear agreement with Iran, while the Obama administration’s lead negotiator for the accord defended its implementation one year after the deal was struck.
Three bills dealing with the agreement, under which Iran agreed to curtail its nuclear program in return for an easing of economic sanctions, are scheduled for a vote this week in the House of Representatives, where Republicans have a majority. The measures would then go to the Senate, which may not take them up before September.
One of the proposals would impose new sanctions on Iran over any sponsorship of terrorism or human rights violations. Another would bar the purchase from the Islamic Republic of “heavy water,” a non-radioactive byproduct of both the manufacturing of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. The third would block Iran’s access to the U.S. financial system, including the use of the dollar.
All three measures have been met with promises of a veto from the White House. Without the Iranian accord, “we would have been forced to confront the reality of how to address Iran’s nuclear program in a world where diplomacy had failed,” Stephen Mull, the State Department’s lead coordinator for Iran nuclear implementation, said Tuesday at a Bipartisan Policy Center conference in Washington.
‘No Better Deal’
“There was no better deal to be had,” Mull said. “If Iran continues to meet its obligation and we walk away, we walk away alone. ”
While the U.S. remains concerned about Iran’s missile program, support for terrorism and human rights violations, within the confines of the nuclear agreement, “this deal is working,” Mull added.
After a decade of isolation under U.S.-led international sanctions, Iran is now seeing greater interest from businesses and banks in its $370 billion economy. However, Iranian officials complain that six months after the economic sanctions were eased, the country has yet to witness the financial benefits many predicted.
“Iran has a lot of homework to do,” Mull said.The three bills expected to be voted on this week in the House are in addition to a measure introduced to derail Boeing Co.’s agreement last month to provide 109 aircraft to Iran’s national airline, a deal valued at more than $17.6 billion. That would be the biggest business transaction between the two countries since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the U.S. hostage crisis.
In issuing its veto threat this week, the White House emphasized that the legislation would undermine the viability of the nuclear agreement.
The deal “is critical to ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program is and will remain exclusively peaceful, which is profoundly in the national security interest of the U.S. and the international community,” according to the statement.
Nuclear power opponent wins governor’s race in South West Japan
Japan nuclear restart in doubt after skeptic wins governor’s race http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/Japan-nuclear-restart-in-doubt-after-skeptic-wins-governor-s-race, 11 July 16 TOKYO — The election of a governor who favors shutting down the Sendai nuclear power plant in southwestern Japan raises uncertainty for the nation’s only running reactors.
“A nuclear plant whose safety hasn’t been confirmed shouldn’t be operating,” Satoshi Mitazono, a former TV journalist who ran in Kagoshima Prefecture, told reporters Sunday.
His victory in Sunday’s gubernatorial race is not expected to lead to the plant immediately shutting down, since governors lack the legal authority to make this happen.
But the plant’s two reactors are due for regularly scheduled inspections in October and December. Local utility Kyushu Electric Power would have little chance of restarting them after the safety checks if the governor objects. Mitazono’s problems with the evacuation plans may introduce time-consuming revisions.
“If the new governor insists on postponing the restarts, that would rule out operating the Sendai reactors,” said a senior official at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which is responsible for Japanese energy policy.
The No. 3 reactor at Shikoku Electric Power‘s Ikata nuclear plant may resume operations as early as this month. Even so, nationwide nuclear energy output would remain far short of the government’s fiscal 2030 target of 20-22% of power generation.
British Parliament to vote on renewing Trident nuclear missile system, as Brexit problems loom
A UK nuclear vote, as Brexit looms http://thebulletin.org/uk-nuclear-vote-brexit-looms9650 By John Mecklin, 10 July 16 In a somewhat unexpected move, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron—who has already declared he will resign in September because of his country’s vote to exit the European Union—announced a quick parliamentary vote on replacing the country’s fleet of nuclear-missile submarines.
The announcement, made at a NATO summit in Warsaw, seems designed to underscore the UK’s commitment to the alliance. This Reuters piece suggests Parliament is likely to vote in favor of renewing the submarine fleet, in large part because of support from Cameron’s Conservative Party.
But amid the political turmoil over possible paths to a “Brexit” from the EU, there will almost certainly be opposition from some in the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalist Party, which is on record as wanting the Scotland-based submarines decommissioned.
Renewal of Trident nuclear weapons system opposed by British Labour and Scottish National Party
Trident: David Cameron confirms date for vote on renewal of nuclear weapons system MPs will vote on the future of the controversial weapons system in the House of Commons, The Independent Siobhan Fenton @siobhanfenton 10 July 2016 Parliament will vote on the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system on 18 July, David Cameron has announced.
Replacement for the system is estimated to cost between £15bn and £20bn. The force currently consists of four submarines which are each capable of carrying up to 16 ballistic nuclear missiles which are capable of hitting targets up to 7,500 miles away……
The fleet will need to be replaced in 2028 and a decision is required by Parliament this year whether to renew the system.
The controversial scheme has proved divisive in Parliament…….
The Labour party has previously supported it but current leader Jeremy Corbyn has been a long-time opponent of renewal. It is expected Labour MPs may be given a free vote on the issue.
Mr Corbyn told Sky News: “We are having a look at all the issues surrounding it. I believe security in the world is achieved through peace, through democracy, through justice, through human rights.
“I do not believe that nuclear weapons actually enhance security, I support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which we are signed up to, which is trying to bring together collective disarmament. Those are the views that I will be putting forward.”
The Labour party has commissioned a defence review about its policy on nuclear weapons. A draft version has reportedly indicated the party will leave open the option of retaining nuclear weapons on a smaller scale, thereby providing a compromise between total disarmament and renewal.
The SNP has been vocal in its opposition of the scheme. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-david-cameron-confirms-date-for-vote-on-renewal-of-nuclear-weapons-system-a7128466.html
America’s major taxpayer liability – the Department of Energy
How the Department of Energy became a major taxpayer liability http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/how-the-department-of-energy-became-a-major-taxpayer-liability.html Mark Fahey | @marktfahey Wednesday, 6 Jul 2016 If you were to guess which government agency has had to pay out the most in court in recent years, the Department of Energy probably wouldn’t come to mind.
And according to the department itself, the bloodletting as far from over. The DOE has failed to make good on some of its most important contractual obligations for years, and its private partners have been collecting billions in damages.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires that the DOE dispose of nuclear waste being produced at civilian energy plants around the country, which in turn pay fees for a long-term storage facility. The department’s contracts with dozens of energy companies said it would start disposing of the waste in 1998.
The companies held up their end, feeding about $750 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund each year. But the department did not manage to set up any facility to receive the waste, forcing energy companies to store it themselves on-site.
All those partial breaches of contract haven’t come cheap. As of the end of 2015, the DOE has paid $5.3 billion for failing to fulfill its obligations, and even if it manages to start disposing of waste in the next 10 years, it could still be on the hook for nearly $24 billion in additional liability.
“Because the United States has no facility available to receive spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it has been unable to begin disposal of SNF from utilities as required by the standard contract with utilities,” said a DOE spokesperson in an email. “Significant litigation claiming damages for partial breach of contract has ensued as a result of this delay.”
At the end of 2015, the DOE had settled 35 lawsuits and resolved 33 with judgments, with 19 cases pending, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A court ruling halted the collection of storage fees in 2014, but energy companies are still seeking to recoup the money they’re spending every year on waste storage. Even after settlements for back pay are reached, the department is usually required to reimburse those costs going forward.
The hang-up has been in finding a location for the centralized storage facility. For decades, Yucca Mountain in Nevada was the only location that could legally be considered, despite fierce opposition from state and local groups. The Obama administration eventually abandoned the site as “unworkable” in 2011.
At the recommendation of the administration’s Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC), the department is now pursuing a “consent-based” approach, meaning that the DOE will seek the approval of relevant communities before construction, rather than trying to force all of the country’s spent nuclear waste on a pre-decided site in Nevada.
“The administration concurs with the conclusion of the BRC that a fundamental flaw of the 1987 amendments to the NWPA was the imposition of a site for characterization,” wrote then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu in the department’s most recent guiding strategy document from January 2013. “In practical terms, this means encouraging communities to volunteer to be considered to host a nuclear waste management facility.”
The DOE plans to have a pilot interim storage facility by 2021, initially to accept waste from reactor sites that were shut down years ago. Limiting the government’s massive liabilities is a major focus of the department’s strategy, according to the document.
The question isn’t whether the DOE will continue to have to pay out an exorbitant amount of money, but just how exorbitant that sum will end up being. The department itself projects that its total liabilities based on previous payouts will ultimately come to $29 billion in 2015 dollars, but that’s assuming it manages to start accepting waste in the next decade.
Neither the Department of Energy nor the Department of Justice could provide a list of related judgments and settlements so far, and the DOE said an updated liability estimate will not be available until its fiscal 2016 financial report comes out later this year.
“The department is currently developing a consent-based siting process for storage and disposal of SNF [spent nuclear fuel] and HLW [high-level radioactive waste],” said the department spokesperson. “Since January, DOE has held a series of public meetings and received feedback on how best to develop this process.”
The energy industry does not seem optimistic about a quick solution. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the department’s total liabilities could stretch to more than $50 billion. But that’s a more pessimistic figure that assumes a “total default” by the DOE.
The DOE’s own documentation for the Yucca Mountain project forecasts that if it failed completely and waste had to stay at the current sites indefinitely, it would cost between $75 billion and $82 billion in 2015 dollars over the first 100 years (including the cost of decommissioning Yucca).
Jay Silberg, a prominent energy industry attorney, said his estimate for total liability is closer to the $50 billion figure.
“I think that number is going to bear out, because I unfortunately don’t have much faith that the government will do what they promised to do in 1982,” said Silberg. “We all hope they can get their act together, but whether that will actually happen and whether it will be at large enough scale to remove the fuel piled up on these sites, I don’t have a lot of confidence in that.”
USA economy’s climate threat if Donald Trump’s energy plan adopted
 Trump’s energy plan poses climate threat to U.S. economy, Skeptical Science, 6 July 2016 by  Robert Kopp, Rutgers University Last December in Paris, the nations of the world agreed to an ambitious goal forgreenhouse gas emissions: to bring net emissions to zero in the second half of this century. Their objective: to limit global warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures, or equivalently about 0.5 to 1.0°C (0.9 to 1.8°F) above the current global average temperature.The Paris Agreement set up a process by which countries commit to emissions targets and then, every five years, report on their progress and make increasingly stringent new commitments. Current national commitments, which lay out targets for the 2025-2030 time frame, aren’t enough to get us to the long-term goal. But the current commitments and the new process constitute a major step toward breaking the dangerous fossil fuel addiction of the last two centuries.
Market forces and public policy in the U.S. and around the world are already helping push the world away from carbon-intensive fuels and toward renewable energy. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions peaked in 2007, and it’s possible that Chinese emissions peaked in 2014. This market-led, policy-accelerated shift is making reduction goals more attainable than they seemed a decade ago. Donald Trump’s “America First” energy plan, outlined in May and focused on expanding fossil-fuel production, would reverse these advances. Trump has promised to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement and pledged to reopen coal mines – a pledge which, given the unfavorable economics of coal mining, he could fulfill only through a massive expansion of corporate welfare for coal companies. Backing out of the Paris Agreement would undermine U.S. leadership and stallgreenhouse gas reduction efforts around the world. And expanding production of coal could return us to the pathway of rapidly rising emissions that characterized the 2000s. The climate consequences of such a great leap backwards would be severe. Far from placing America first, they would threaten the health of Americans and of the American economy – not to mention people and economies throughout the world……….http://www.skepticalscience.com/trump-energy-plan-threat-us-economy.html |
Britain’s nuclear submarines’ radioactive wastes will NOT be going to Scotland
Chapelcross site ruled out for nuclear submarine waste BBC News 8 July 2016 The Ministry of Defence has ruled out a Scottish site as a possible location to store waste from nuclear submarines.
Chapelcross near Annan was on a shortlist of five potential locations.
Capenhurst in Cheshire has been selected to store the nuclear components, with Aldermaston in Berkshire as a “fall back” option. The Scottish site was ruled out along with Sellafield in West Cumbria and Burghfield in Berkshire following public consultation…….
The nuclear components are from 18 redundant submarines and nine still in service.
The redundant Royal Navy submarines are currently stored afloat at Devonport in Plymouth and Rosyth in Fife, but cannot be dismantled until the reactor components have been removed.
The radioactive parts will be stored until after 2040, when the UK’s Geological Disposal Facility, for the permanent disposal of spent fuel and nuclear waste, is planned to come into operation……..http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-36745287
Generous subsidies proposed for Upstate New York nuclear plants
NY regulators propose generous Upstate nuclear subsidies By Tim Knauss | tknauss@syracuse.com SYRACUSE, N.Y. – State utility regulators today released a proposal to subsidize Upstate nuclear plants with annual payments totaling an estimated $482 million a year.
The proposal from the Public Service Commission staff seems likely to please nuclear plant operators, who say their facilities deserve subsidies for providing carbon-free power, and to infuriate anti-nuclear advocates who want more resources devoted to wind and solar.
The public has a brief window to comment — until July 18 – an indication that the PSC is likely to rule on the proposal at its Aug. 1 meeting.
Exelon Corp., which owns three of the four Upstate nuclear reactors, recently told the commission that the facilities might close unless subsidies were approved by September.
The proposal unveiled today recommends that the PSC sign 12-year agreements with nuclear operators, as Exelon had previously recommended.
The subsidies would be set administratively by the PSC. According to estimates provided in the proposal, the subsidies would start at $17.48 per megawatt-hour for the first two years and rise gradually to $29.15 per MWH in years 11 and 12.
At the expected combined output of 27.6 million MWH for the Upstate nukes, the total cost would be $482 million a year during the first two years, rising to $805 million per year for the final two years…….http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/ny_regulators_proposed_generous_upstate_nuclear_subsidies.html
Hinkley nuclear costs now estimated at £37bn
Estimated cost of Hinkley Point C nuclear plant rises to £37bn Critics point to volatility of scheme but energy department says price ‘will not affect bill payers’, Guardian, Terry Macalister, 8 July 16, The total lifetime cost of the planned Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant could be as high as £37bn, according to an assessment published by the UK government. The figure was described as shocking by critics of the scheme, who said it showed just how volatile and uncertain the project had become, given that the same energy department’s estimate 12 months earlier had been £14bn.
The latest prediction comes amid increasing speculation about the future of the controversial project in Somerset, whose existence has been put in further doubt by post-Brexit financial jitters.
Hinkley has been a flagship energy project for the British government and in particular for the chancellor, George Osborne, who lobbied hard and successfully for China to take a stake in the scheme…….
Critics of the scheme have claimed that the fall in the value of the pound since the referendum vote will increase the costs of the scheme to EDF’s French contractors, who work in euros………. the EDF staff council last month began legal action to try to force the company to release documents relating the project, including all the contracts it had signed with the British government and its co-investor, the Chinese utility CGN.
The fall in power prices in the UK and continental Europe that has influenced the latest lifetime cost assessment for Hinkley is also responsible for some of the financial difficulties at EDF.
There have also been suggestions that Chinese investors are becoming more nervous about Hinkley and are demanding more concessions from EDF, so that more Chinese project managers and suppliers are involved. EDF has denied this. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant-costs-up-to-37bn
Forces in Iran trying to torpedo nuclear deal
Germany says forces in Iran trying to torpedo nuclear deal, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-germany-idUSKCN0ZO1F9 8 July 16 Responding to German intelligence agency reports that Iran has been trying to acquire nuclear technology in Germany, Berlin said on Friday that certain forces in Iran may be trying to undermine its nuclear deal with the West.
Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), said in its annual report that Iranian efforts to illegally procure technology, especially in the nuclear area, had continued at a “high level” in 2015.
A separate report from the intelligence agency in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia this week said it had registered 141 attempts to acquire technology for proliferation purposes last year and that two-thirds of these attempts were linked to Iran.
Asked about the reports on Friday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Schaefer said Germany expected Iran to stick to a United Nations Security Council resolution which sets restrictions on arms-related transfers.
But he also suggested that the procurement attempts may stem from forces in Iran that oppose last year’s nuclear deal, under which Iran agreed to roll back its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of western economic sanctions.
“There are forces within Iran for which the policies of the country’s president and foreign minister are a thorn in the eye,” Schaefer said. “They may be trying, one way or another, to undermine or torpedo the nuclear deal and the normalization of relations between us and Iran. We are watching this closely.”But hardline allies of Khamenei, including the elite Revolutionary Guards, are wary of losing their grip in power by opening up to the West and have repeatedly criticized pragmatist President Rouhani’s foreign policy.
Schaefer said Germany had a “great deal of faith” in President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and had the impression that Tehran was doing its best to stick to the deal, which ended a 12-year standoff with the West over the nuclear program.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose power far outweighs that of Iran’s elected officials in parliament or the presidency, gave decisive support to the nuclear deal.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a speech to parliament on Thursday, said ballistic missile launches carried out by Iran earlier this year were inconsistent with the UN resolution, which calls on Iran to refrain from work on missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons for up to eight years.
The NRW intelligence report said procurement efforts in 2015 had been focused on so-called “dual-use” technologies that can be used in both civil and military sectors. While nuclear-related procurement attempts fell slightly, those related to Iran’s missile program rose.
The report said documents had been falsified to suggest technologies were destined for the oil, gas and steel industries. In an apparent attempt to cover its tracks, Iran was seeking to acquire technologies via third countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and China, the report said.
1 This Month
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (142)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
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
nuclear-news 