nuclear-news

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

Labour ‘utterly wrong’ to double down on costly and immoral nuclear weapons, Scottish Greens say

Chris Jarvis  Bright Green 19th March 2025, https://bright-green.org/2025/03/19/labour-utterly-wrong-to-double-down-on-costly-and-immoral-nuclear-weapons-scottish-greens-say/

Scottish Labour is utterly wrong to be doubling down in its support for costly and immoral nuclear weapons that tie us even closer to the extremist Trump administration, the Scottish Greens Co-leader Patrick Harvie has said.

Harvie’s comments followed Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar’s support for Trident at last week’s First Minister’s Questions in Holyrood.

Harvie said: “Nuclear weapons have always been a moral abomination. It is utterly wrong for Labour to be doubling down in their support.

“But now, even those who have supported Trident in the past must surely realise that the US is not a reliable ally, and it is simply unsafe to continue nuclear cooperation with them.

“We urgently need to move away from the extremist Trump administration, but maintaining these weapons of mass destruction would leave us tied to him and his dangerous foreign policy.

“Nuclear weapons are incapable of discriminating between military and civilian targets. Their use would cause mass murder and environmental damage on a scale never seen before.

“They are an extortionate and destructive money pit that has already soaked up hundreds of billions of pounds that could have been spent addressing the genuine security needs we have, or, better still, on tackling the cost of living crisis that is plunging thousands of families into totally avoidable poverty.”

March 23, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

BAE: Barrow MP hits out at planned nuclear protest

 The MP for Barrow and Furness has hit back at plans for an anti-nuclear
protest outside BAE Systems this weekend. The Cumbria and Lancashire
district of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) will begin their
national ‘Peace Not Weapons’ tour on Saturday, March 22. This will involve
leafletting across Barrow’s town centre, with the main rally coming
together on the High Level Bridge over the Devonshire Dock. Michelle
Scrogham, however, has voiced her opposition to the demonstration,
particularly given the global climate.

 NW Evening Mail 19th March 2025, https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/25016245.michelle-scrogham-utterly-barrow-nuclear-protest/

March 23, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

EDF may get state loan for six new reactors

 France’s Nuclear Policy Council – headed by President Emmanuel Macron –
has agreed that a subsidised government loan should be issued to
state-owned power utility EDF to cover at least half the construction costs
of six EPR2 reactors.

 World Nuclear News 18th March 2025,
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/edf-may-get-state-loan-for-six-new-reactors

March 21, 2025 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Canada Pours Nearly $450M into New Nuclear Subsidies

March 18, 2025  The Energy Mix, Author: Jody MacPherson

Canada has announced around C$450 million in new subsidies for nuclear energy, including the reallocation of funds collected from industrial emitters of greenhouse gases, in what the government frames as a bid to enhance energy security and reliability.

Ottawa will lend AtkinsRéalis, formerly SNC-Lavalin Group, C$304 million over four years to finance the development and modernization of a new Canadian deuterium uranium (CANDU) nuclear reactor named MONARK, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said in a news release.

But a leading nuclear critic told The Energy Mix the new subsidies will be far from sufficient to bring the new design to life, and the new design is years if not a decade or more away from going into service………………………………………….

Nuclear Cost Concerns

But nuclear is also by far the most expensive way to generate electricity, Susan O’Donnell, an adjunct research professor at St. Thomas University who studies energy transitions in Canada, told The Mix. Ottawa’s funding is “nowhere near the amount” needed to fully develop and build reactors, she said, adding that it will take years to develop the MONARK design toward applying for a licence to build.

O’Donnell pointed to two similar reactors that just came online in Georgia, United States, at a cost of US$35 billion, compared to just $4 billion for the equivalent solar capacity.

“The big nuclear reactors were almost nine times more expensive than solar,” said O’Donnell. “It makes no sense.”

More Federal Cash for SMRs

Canada is also directing $55 million from Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Future Electricity Fund (FEF) to Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington New Nuclear Project for three new small modular reactors (SMRs) that together could power about 900,000 average Ontario homes……………

The SMRs destined for Darlington were designed by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, based out of North Carolina, and would require enriched uranium fuel, which Canada cannot produce domestically, reported the Globe and Mail. Wilkinson told the Globe that Canada’s options for enriched uranium include the United States or Russia, and that Canada could develop that capability if necessary, but it was not preferable.

While collaborating on nuclear projects with the U.S. might help eliminate tariffs, he added, “we’re unlikely to be spending an enormous amount of time collaborating with a party that is treating us like an adversary.”

First Nations Concerns

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission held its second set of public hearings just over a month ago for the first of the three reactors planned for Darlington. The hearing included presentations from the chiefs of four First Nations—Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississaugas of Scugog Island, and Alderville—calling for a new collaborative relationship built on respect, trust, and partnership.

Chief Kelly LaRocca of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation said “the current relationship is not working effectively.”

Additional Funding Announced

Further funding will also go to SaskPower’s SMR pre-development program. The FEF increased its program funding from $24 million to $80 million.

More federal subsidy support is also destined for Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Ontario. ……..
https://www.theenergymix.com/canada-pours-nearly-450m-into-new-nuclear-subsidies/

March 21, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Australia: Liberals Against Nuclear launches campaign to return party to core values

Liberals Against Nuclear

A new advocacy group, “Liberals Against Nuclear,” launched today with an advertising campaign aimed at persuading the Liberal Party to abandon its nuclear energy policy position so it can win the coming election.

The group spokesman is Andrew Gregson, former Tasmanian Liberal director, candidate, and small businessman.

“Nuclear power is the big road block preventing the Liberals getting to the Lodge,” Gregson said. “This is big government waste that betrays liberal values, splits the party, and hands Government back to Labor. It’s time for our party to dump nuclear.

“This policy contradicts core liberal principles by requiring tens of billions in government borrowing, swelling the bureaucracy, and imposing massive taxpayer-backed risk.”

The campaign launch includes television advertising, digital content, and billboards questioning the Liberal Party’s support for nuclear. The ads highlight how nuclear energy requires billions in upfront government borrowing, with international experience showing inevitable cost blowouts.

“As John Howard said: “For Liberals the role of government should be strategic and limited.” Yet this nuclear policy gives us bigger government, higher taxes to pay for it, more debt, and less freedom as the state takes over energy production,” Gregson said.

The group warns that the nuclear policy is driving free market and middle ground voters directly to the Teals and other independents in must-win seats. Recent polling shows just 35% of Australians support nuclear energy, with support collapsing once voters understand the policy details.

The group warns that the nuclear policy is driving free market and middle ground voters directly to the Teals and other independents in must-win seats. Recent polling shows just 35% of Australians support nuclear energy, with support collapsing once voters understand the policy details. https://liberalsagainstnuclear.au/

March 21, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

Engie Finalises Agreement To Extend Operation Of Two Belgium Nuclear Plants

By David Dalton, 18 March 2025, Nucnet

Transfer of waste liabilities reduces company’s exposure to future costs

French energy group Engie has formalised a 10-year extension of the Doel-4 and Tihange-3 nuclear power plants in Belgium in partnership with the Belgian state.

The announcement follows approval of the agreement from the European Commission in February and consolidated a preliminary agreement signed two years earlier between the company and Belgian authorities.

The deal includes transferring financial responsibility for nuclear waste and spent fuel, a significant financial issue for both parties. A first tranche of the associated payment has already been made to Engie, with a second due upon reactor restart, scheduled for next November.

Engie said the transfer of all nuclear waste liabilities to the Belgian government means it will no longer be exposed to future waste treatment costs………………..https://www.nucnet.org/news/engie-finalises-agreement-to-extend-operation-of-two-belgium-nuclear-plants-3-2-2025

March 20, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, politics, wastes | Leave a comment

Trump offers to take control of Ukraine’s nuclear plants in call with Zelensky

President Donald Trump proposed that the United States take control of Ukrainian nuclear power plants to protect them from Russian attacks during a Tuesday call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky said Kyiv was “ready” to pause attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure, a day after Moscow agreed to halt similar strikes on Ukraine.

By: FRANCE 24, Video by: James VASINA, 19 Mar 25

Donald Trump told Volodymyr Zelensky Wednesday that the United States could own and run Ukraine‘s nuclear power plants as part of his latest bid to secure a ceasefire in Russia‘s invasion of its neighbour.

The Ukrainian president said following their call that Kyiv was “ready” to pause attacks on Russia’s energy network and infrastructure, a day after Vladimir Putin agreed to halt similar strikes on Ukraine.

Zelensky also said he had discussed Trump’s power plant takeover plan.

“We talked only about one power plant, which is under Russian occupation,” Zelensky, who was on an official visit to Finland, said during an online briefing, referring to the plant in Zaporizhzhia…………………………………………………………………..

Trump “discussed Ukraine’s electrical supply and nuclear power plants” and said Washington could be “very helpful” in running them,” National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a joint statement.

“American ownership of those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure,” it said……………………………………  https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250320-trump-ukraine-nuclear-power-plants-zelensky

March 20, 2025 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Regulators get targets to cut red tape and boost the economy

Ministers will make Britain’s 16 biggest regulators undergo twice-yearly performance reviews as part of a strategy to speed up big infrastructure projects.

 Rachel Reeves will meet UK regulators on Monday after calling for more
action to restrict red tape and spur economic growth. The chancellor argued
that government plans would reduce costly delays and disputes, saving
businesses billions, and said regulators must accept a more streamlined
decision-making process. Reeves is expected to use the meeting to announce
more detail on how the government will cut the cost of regulation by a
quarter and set out plans to slim down or abolish regulators themselves.
High on the chancellor’s target list are the costly hold-ups to major
infrastructure projects when environmental concerns are raised.

 Guardian 17th March 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/17/reeves-to-outline-plan-to-cut-regulation-costs-and-boost-growth

March 19, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

China, Russia back Iran as Trump presses Tehran for nuclear talks

By Ryan Woo, Xiuhao Chen and Laurie Chen, March 14, 2025,

  • Summary
  • China, Russia, Iran say talks should be based on mutual respect
  • They say ‘unlawful’ unilateral sanctions should be lifted
  • China, Russia urge respect for Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy

BEIJING, March 14 (Reuters) – China and Russia stood by Iran on Friday after the United States demanded nuclear talks with Tehran, with senior Chinese and Russian diplomats saying dialogue should only resume based on “mutual respect” and all sanctions ought to be lifted.

In a joint statement issued after talks with Iran in Beijing, China and Russia also said they welcomed Iran’s reiteration that its nuclear programme was exclusively for peaceful purposes, and that Tehran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy should be “fully” respected………………………………………………… https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-iran-russia-kick-off-talks-beijing-over-irans-nuclear-issues-2025-03-14/

March 17, 2025 Posted by | China, Iran, politics, Russia | Leave a comment

Anas Sarwar U-turns on Scottish Labour nuclear weapons policy

SCOTTISH Labour are facing calls to clarify their stance on the UK’s
nuclear weapons after Anas Sarwar appeared to pull a unilateral U-turn at
First Minister’s Questions. Speaking at Holyrood on Thursday, the Labour
group leader called for First Minister John Swinney and the SNP to reverse
their stance on Trident – the UK’s nuclear weapons system which is
housed on the Clyde.

The SNP oppose nuclear weapons and oppose renewing
Trident, want to see the system removed from Scotland, and support an
international treaty banning the bomb.

Previously, Scottish Labour’s
membership passed a motion opposing the renewal of Trident – and in 2021
Sarwar backed it despite Keir Starmer’s support for the policy. Sarwar
has now suggested that he supports the UK’s nuclear weapons being
renewed. Speaking at FMQs, the Scottish Labour leader said: “Global
events are reshaping the world before our eyes. This is a generation
defining moment, and all political parties and both of Scotland’s
governments must adjust to this new reality and rethink previous red
lines.”

 The National 13th March 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/news/25005720.anas-sarwar-seems-u-turn-scottish-labour-nuclear-weapons-policy/

March 16, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Great British Nuclear explains how it will mitigate risks to SMR programme.

13 Mar, 2025 By Tom Pashby

Great British Nuclear (GBN) has explained how it plans to overcome the key risks to the small modular reactor (SMR) programme is it running and that it plans to establish of SMR development companies (DevCos) to take the projects forward.

  The updates were shared in its inaugural 2024 Annual
report and accounts for the 2023/2024 financial year.

It is assumed that GBN will select two vendors to deliver one SMR each, but this was recently
called into question by sources speaking to the Telegraph who said the
chancellor may cut spending at GBN as part of the Spending Review which is
due on 11 June 2025. GBN chief executive officer Gwen Parry-Jones said:
“The UK’s nuclear sector has had some well-documented challenges, ones
that GBN has been set up to navigate.” She did not spell out the
challenges.

“SMRs have not yet been deployed anywhere at scale and their
first-of-a-kind (FOAK) nature presents unique considerations and complex
challenges for us to overcome.” She reassured, however, that she is
“committed to ensure that GBN is an adaptable and resilient organisation
that is flexible and evolves as conditions change, but with our eyes always
firmly fixed on the future to deliver our long-term mission and value for
the UK”.

The report lays out the “principal risks” which GBN believes
the SMR programme faces, along with “key mitigation measures”. The
risks are centred around technology maturity, the ambitious programme
timeline, resourcing, funding and financing, stakeholder alignment,
‘contractual and procurement complexity’, site readiness and cyber
threat.

On technology maturity, it said: “Due to the first of a kind
(FOAK) nature of the technology, providers may not be able to meet
strategic objectives, including timely delivery, value for money and
obtaining regulatory approval. “This may delay approval timelines, affect
project milestones or cause an SMR project to fail.” It says that the SMR
competition that it is running will assess the technologies and mitigate
this risk. However, it also reveals that it will retain the option of, in
addition to the SMR competition winners, selecting a “reserve contractor,
to provide contingency against one provider failing to meet agreed
standards”.

GBN lists four other mitigations, including stating it could
or would provide “predetermined exit points” from projects “should a
project exceed cost estimates or timelines stretch beyond acceptable
parameters”. Regarding risk relating to “funding and financing”, it
says: “GBN’s available funding may be insufficient to resource and
deliver the programme to the planned timetable, e.g. should a change arise
from any change in government policy or in its budgetary priorities.

“A reduction in funding could also be triggered by market conditions or
external events such as an external nuclear event affecting public
sentiment towards nuclear safety.

 New Civil Engineer 13th March 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/great-british-nuclear-explains-how-it-will-mitigate-risks-to-smr-programme-13-03-2025/

March 15, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Eight Reasons Why Nuclear Power is Not the Answer for Hawaii

by Sherry Pollack, 14 Mar 25

Nuclear power isn’t “zero emission.” The nuclear industry has conducted a propaganda campaign rife with factually inaccurate information, including that nuclear power is “carbon-free electricity.” However, this could not be further from the truth. To be clear, there is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear reactor. Even existing reactors emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the reactor.

Transporting nuclear fuel is a hazard. As an isolated island chain, Hawaii faces unique and significant risks in transporting nuclear fuel over vast ocean distances. Any accidents during transport, be it from bringing fuel here or shipping waste back, could have catastrophic consequences for Hawaii’s pristine marine environment and tourism-dependent economy.

Nuclear waste. The waste generated by nuclear reactors remains radioactive for thousands of years and needs to be kept contained throughout that time. Currently, there are no long-term storage solutions for radioactive waste, and most is stored in temporary, above-ground facilities.

Hawaii’s geological instability, including frequent earthquakes, volcanic activity, and tsunami risks, makes it an unsafe location for storing nuclear waste. There are no viable long-term solutions for safely containing radioactive materials in such a volatile environment.

Accidents. Human error and natural disasters can lead to dangerous and immensely costly accidents. Think Red Hill but multiply that exponentially. Direct costs would include cleanup operations, property damage, and evacuation efforts, as well as significant indirect costs including long-term health consequences, economic disruption due to lost productivity and tourism, and severe psychological impacts on affected populations, often lasting for generations. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the emergency planning zone around a nuclear power plant typically extends to a 10-mile radius for immediate radiation exposure concerns, while a broader “ingestion pathway” zone reaches out to a 50-mile radius where food and water contamination could occur in the event of an incident. This would make safely siting a power plant, particularly on Oahu, impossible.

Impacts on Local Communities and Ecosystems. In addition to the significant risk of cancer associated with fallout from nuclear disasters, studies also show increased risk for those who reside near a nuclear power plant, especially for childhood cancers such as leukemia. Workers in the nuclear industry are also exposed to higher-than-normal levels of radiation, and as a result are at a higher risk of death from cancer.

Nuclear energy is too expensive. To protect the climate, we must reduce the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time. Nuclear power does none of this. A report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found that even small modular reactors (SMRs) are expensive, too slow to build, and too risky to play a significant role in transitioning from fossil fuels in the coming 10-15 years.

Integral Fast Reactors, Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, Thorium Fueled Reactors, Molten Salt Reactors, and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are not viable. Nuclear power advocates promote small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and other “advanced” nuclear technologies as the only real solution for the climate crisis. However, proponents of SMRs and these other so called “new” types of reactors fail to address their unproven nature, unresolved safety risks, and economic inefficiency. Moreover, SMRs cannot be counted on to provide ‘firm’ power as has been touted. Just like today’s nuclear plants, SMRs will be vulnerable to extreme weather events or other disasters that could cause a loss of offsite power and force them to shut down. Additionally, the push for SMRs often serves the private interests of billionaires looking to power AI data centers rather than benefiting the people of Hawaii. Bottom line, SMRs are wishful thinking rooted in misinformation.

Nuclear power is an expensive distraction undermining our ability to achieve our clean energy goals. Investment in nuclear power, including SMRs, will take resources away from carbon-free and lower-cost renewable technologies that are available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward significantly in the coming decade. Hawaii is already on the path to achieving 100% renewable energy by 2045. Nuclear power is not renewable, requires costly infrastructure, and pursuing it would divert attention and resources from proven, sustainable solutions like solar, and wind.

Nuclear power has NO place in Hawaii’s clean energy future. Nuclear power is too dirty, too dangerous, and too expensive. It is environmentally harmful and produces waste that will be a burden on future generations. Accordingly, we urge the legislature to commit to uphold Hawaii’s constitution, a sustainable future, prioritize investing our resources in a clean renewable energy future, and honor the voices of its people by opposing the use of nuclear power in Hawaii.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Alarmed by Trump, South Korea mulls Japan-style nuclear option

Prominent voices seek capacity to reprocess spent nuclear fuel or enrich uranium and be able potentially to make bombs.

ASIA TIMES, by Daniel SneiderMarch 15, 2025

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… The most striking evidence of South Korean alarm over the treatment of allies is the widening discussion of the need to have an independent nuclear arms capability. Conservatives have long advocated that option, but the debate has now moved into progressive circles where prominent voices are calling for South Korea to develop nuclear latency – the capacity to reprocess spent nuclear fuel or enrich uranium to be able to potentially possess fissile material for making bombs.

The Japanese model?

For now, South Korea hopes it can follow the path set by Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and offer Trump concessions ranging from trade, supply chain investment, and cooperation on shipbuilding to promoting South Korea’s role as an asset in a confrontation against China.

At the moment, South Korea does not have an effective government, pending the imminent decision of the Constitutional Court on the impeachment of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol. But whatever follows, the South Korean president will have to deal with Trump.

Assemblyman Wi believes the best they can hope for is a smooth and non-confrontational meeting modeled on that of Ishiba, which yielded a joint statement that reaffirmed the US-Japan alliance along the lines of previous statements with the Joe Biden administration.

………………………………………………………………………………….. I think President Trump thinks North Korea is unfinished business left over from the first Trump administration. We have to prepare for the worst.”

Nuclear latency

“The worst” includes the withdrawal of United States Forces Korea (USFK) from South Korea and a withholding of the US nuclear umbrella.

Regardless of how important the U.S.-ROK alliance is now, “there may come a time when it is difficult to rely on the US for our security,” former Minister of Foreign Affairs Yoon Young-kwan wrote in an op-ed published this month. “In preparation for that time, we should strengthen our national defense capabilities, including potential nuclear capabilities, and prepare to handle the deterrence of North Korea with our own strength.”

Progressives are more reticent to endorse nuclear weapons outright, but some have thrown their weight behind nuclear latency – a conscious imitation of the model pursued by Japan to have a full fuel cycle capability. South Korea could, theoretically, reprocess the spent fuel from its power reactors to extract bomb-grade plutonium or, alternatively, have the capacity to enrich uranium, potentially up to bomb-grade levels.

South Korea has long sought to revise the so-called 123 agreement for nuclear cooperation with the United States, which has restricted its ability to have a full fuel cycle. The agreement was only recently reaffirmed, in January at the close of the Biden administration.

In an important column published on March 4 in the progressive newspaper Kyunghyang Shinmun, former Minister of Unification Lee Jong-seok, another close advisor to presidential aspirant Lee Jae-myung, argued that nuclear latency can be achieved within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and with the consent of the United States.

“China, Russia and North Korea, our neighboring countries, are nuclear weapon states, and Japan has already demonstrated its potential,” Lee wrote. “In this situation, it is rather unnatural that South Korea, a nuclear power, cannot reprocess or enrich uranium due to the restrictions of the Korea-US Nuclear Energy Agreement.”

Others in Seoul advocate defecting from the 123 agreement if the United States reduces USFK forces on the peninsula, says Kim Joon-hyung, a Rebuilding Korea Party lawmaker and former senior diplomat.

Kim is a critic of the U.S. alliance but is personally opposed to nuclear latency. “I don’t agree with nuclear proliferation,” he said. “Even if we have nuclear weapons, I don’t think we have security. Small conflicts may become more common. The Korean Peninsula is too small – high tech conventional weapons are enough. Japan will go nuclear and relations with China and Russia will worsen.”

Others are concerned about the isolation that South Korea could experience if it goes down this road. Cho Hyun, a former senior diplomat and progressive foreign policy advisor, helped negotiate the 123 agreement during the Bill Clinton administration. “The right wing thinks we should have our own nuclear development,” Cho told me in Seoul. “We don’t think it is realistic. Some progressives want to request the US for full fuel cycle like Japan. I am against this.”

As the nuclear latency argument rapidly gains support among progressive circles, revising the 123 agreement may become a bargaining chip for South Korea in negotiations with the Trump administration.

At least some inside the administration, though likely not Trump-appointed officials, have become aware of this, prompting media reports that the U.S. Department of Energy is considering labeling South Korea a “sensitive country,” a designation for countries who might be considering going nuclear.

For South Korea, this may only be the start of many shocks to come.

Daniel C. Sneider is a non-resident distinguished fellow at the Korea Economic Institute of America and a lecturer in East Asian studies at Stanford University.  https://asiatimes.com/2025/03/alarmed-by-trump-south-korea-mulls-japan-style-nuclear-latency/#

March 15, 2025 Posted by | politics, South Korea | Leave a comment

More Guns, Less Butter: Starmer’s Defence Spending Splash

To pursue such rearmament, Starmer has decided to take the axe to the aid budget, 

March 8, 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.net/more-guns-less-butter-starmers-defence-spending-splash/

The urge to throw more money at defence budgets across a number of countries has become infectious. It was bound to happen with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, given his previous insistence that US allies do more to fatten their own armies rather than rely on the largesse of Washington’s power. Spend, spend, spend is the theme, and the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has shown himself willing to join this wasteful indulgence.

On February 25, just prior to his visit to Washington, Starmer announced that spending on defence would reach 2.5% of GDP from April 2027. In the next parliament, it would rise to 3%. “In recent years,” states a UK government press release, “the world has been reshaped by global instability, including Russian aggression in Ukraine, increasing threats from malign actors, rapid technological change, and the accelerating impacts of climate change.”  

Almost predictably, the term “Cold War” makes its retro appearance, with the spending increase the largest since that conflict of wilful misunderstandings and calculated paranoia. Russia figures prominently, as do “malign actors” who have burdened “the working people of Britain” with “increased energy bills, or threats to British interests and values.”

The governing Labour Party has also gone a bit gung-ho with the military–industrial establishment. In an open letter reported by the Financial Times, over 100 Labour MPs and peers thought it wise that ethical rules restricting investment by banks and investment firms in defence companies be relaxed. Financial institutions, the letter argues, should “rethink ESG [environmental, social and governance] mechanisms that often wrongly exclude all defence investment.” It was also important to address the issue of those “unnecessary barriers” defence firms face when “doing business in the UK.” Among such barriers are those irritating matters such as money laundering checks banks are obliged to conduct when considering the finance needs of defence and security firms, along with seeking assurances that they are not financing weapons banned under international law.

That these uncontroversial rules are now being seen as needless barriers to an industry that persists in shirking accountability is a sign of creeping moral flabbiness. Across Europe, the defence and arms lobbyists, those great exploiters of fictional insecurity, are feeling more confident than they have in years. They can rely on such figures as European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, who stated on March 4 that, “We are in an era of rearmament. And Europe is ready to massively boost its defence spending.”

To pursue such rearmament, Starmer has decided to take the axe to the aid budget, reducing it from its current level of 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% in 2027. It was, as the press release goes on to mention, a “difficult choice” and part of “the evolving nature of the threat and the strategic shift required to meet it.” The Conservatives approved the measure, and the populist Reform UK would have little reason to object, seeing it had been its policy suggestion at the last election.

It was a decision that sufficiently troubled the international development minister, Anneliese Dodds, to quit the cabinet. In a letter to the prime minister, Dodds remarked that, while Starmer wished “to continue support for Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine; for vaccination; for climate; and for rules-based systems,” doing so would “be impossible … given the depth of the cut.”

Making the Office of Overseas Development Assistance absorb such a reduction would also see Britain “pull-out from numerous African, Caribbean and Western Balkan nations – at a time when Russia has been aggressively increasing its global presence.” It would be isolated from various multilateral bodies, see “a withdrawal from regional banks and a reduced commitment to the World Bank.” Influence would also be lost at such international fora as the G7 and G20.

Defence establishment figures have also regarded the decision to reduce aid with some consternation. General Lord Richards, former Chief of Defence Staff, saw the sense of an increase in military spending but not at the expense of the aid budget. “The notion that we must weaken one to strengthen the other is not just misleading but dangerous,” opined Richards in The Telegraph. “A lack of investment and development will only fuel greater instability, increase security threats and place a heavier burden on our Armed Forces.”The aid budgets of wealthy states should never be seen as benevolent projects. Behind the charitable endeavour is a calculation that speaks more to power (euphemised as “soft”) than kindness. Aid keeps the natives of other countries clothed, fed and sufficiently sustained not to want to stray to other contenders. The sentiment was expressed all too clearly by a disappointed Dodds: a smaller UK aid budget would embolden an already daring Russia to fill the vacuum. How fascinating, then, that a daring Russia, its threatening posture inflated and exaggerated, is one of the primary reasons prompting an increase in Britain’s defence spending in the first place.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Canada Unveils $490-Million Push Towards Nuclear Energy

 Energy

Canada Unveils $490-Million Push Towards Nuclear Energy

10 Mar 25,

A massive push towards nuclear in Canada is set after several investments have been announced by Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson. Wilkinson is pushing what the government describes as “crucial steps towards clean, affordable, and homegrown nuclear technology.”

Central to Canada’s nuclear revival is a $304 million joint investment with engineering firm AtkinsRéalis to advance the next generation of Canada’s signature CANDU reactor. The initiative aims to refine the standard design of this Canadian-developed reactor technology.

Also key to Canada’s nuclear expansion involves small modular reactors, which provide scalable and versatile solutions for regional power needs. Ontario Power Generation received $55 million through the Future Electricity Fund to develop pre-construction activities for three SMRs at its Darlington facility.

Saskatchewan also received a substantial $80 million investment for SMR predevelopment. Managed by SaskPower through Saskatchewan’s Crown Investments Corporation, the project will focus on technical, regulatory, and community engagement tasks.

In Alberta, Capital Power Limited Partnership secured $13 million to evaluate potential SMR locations in the province, alongside a notable $8.3 million investment in the Peace Region for preliminary work on a large-scale nuclear facility with a potential capacity of 4,800 MW.

Western University in London, Ontario, received nearly $5 million to study advanced nuclear fuels, specifically the TRi-structural ISOtropic or TRISO fuel type. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, situated in Chalk River, Ontario, was awarded over $3.5 million to establish new standards and strategies for SMR deployment across Canada, aiming to optimize waste management.

Additionally, the Saskatchewan Industrial and Mining Suppliers Association received approximately $2.8 million to assess and enhance the province’s nuclear supply chain readiness, explicitly incorporating Indigenous businesses.

Complementary to nuclear advancements, the Alberta Electric System Operator secured $18.5 million to develop IT infrastructure capable of managing increased complexity arising from clean electricity generation. Alberta is also investing $1.3 million in the Tent Mountain Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Project near Coleman for advancing integrated clean energy storage solutions alongside nuclear development.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »