nuclear-news

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

Scotland’s First Minister Swinney hits back at ‘hopelessly ideological’ attack from nuclear industry

By Martin Williams, @Martin1Williams, Senior News Reporter, Herald 20th June 2024

The First Minister has rejected an attack from the nuclear industry that his ban on new power plants is “hopelessly ideological”.

John Swinney doubled down on his rejection of new nuclear after he was challenged in the Scottish Parliament over his stance after the nuclear industry criticisms, revealed in the Herald on Sunday targeted his view that he was “not a fan of the nuclear industry” and that he “never have and never will” support investments in new power plants.

He has been responding to calls to lift the ban on nuclear as fears grow over hundreds of jobs being lost and skilled workers leaving Scotland for overseas.

The nuclear industry attacked the First Minister for being “hopelessly ideological and anti-science” after he said he was “not a fan” of the business and that he “never have and never will” support investment in the power plants……………………

When asked for his response to the nuclear industry in the Scottish Parliament, Mr Swinney said: “The Scottish Government does not support the building of new nuclear power stations in Scotland. We have abundant natural resources and a highly skilled workforce to take advantage of the many renewable energy opportunities. Evidence shows that new nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives.

“Nuclear energy also creates radioactive waste, which must be safely managed over many decades to protect the environment, requiring complex and expensive handling. The Scottish government is supporting continued growth in renewables, storage, hydrogen and carbon capture technologies to drive economic growth, support green jobs and provide secure, affordable and clean energy for Scotland.”

But in response, Scottish Conservative Central Scotland MSP Graham Simpson said: “So it is hopelessly ideological and anti science…………………..

The First Minister responded: “I gave a considered answer to Graham Simpson. I don’t think it could in any way be described as ideological, because I made the point that evidence shows that new nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives.

“We are facing a cost of living and public finance crisis, so any responsible First Minister will look to make sure that we make the most fiscally efficient approach to energy generation.

“This government, as a result of its clear policy leadership, has successfully decarbonised electricity generation within Scotland. We have developed renewable energy with policy certainty, and I want to give the same policy certainty to storage, to hydrogen to carbon capture technologies to drive economic growth and support green jobs……………………

And he added: “So I am afraid to say Graham Simpson has not got a leg to stand on this question. We have got a clear strategy on renewables. We will pursue that and will pursue it sustainably to deliver for the people of Scotland………………………..  https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24400300.swinney-hits-back-hopelessly-ideological-attack-nuclear/

June 23, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

  UK nuclear power plants rollout may be hit by planning hurdles

 Companies bidding for government contracts to build the UK’s first mini-reactors
may find there are factors beyond their control. Britain wants to revive
its nuclear industry. Both the Conservatives and Labour, jostling for
electoral success, see reactors as a way of decarbonising the energy
network, providing a reliable base alongside clean but intermittent wind
and solar power.

But there’s a problem. All but one of the country’s
existing nuclear power stations are set to be decommissioned by the end of
the decade and Hinkley Point C, the only new one being built, is suffering
from budget blowouts and delays. The solution, it seems, is not to think
big but to think conspicuously smaller.

Mini-plants are being touted as a
faster and cheaper way of boosting the country’s nuclear capacity. Six
companies are on a shortlist competing for £20 billion in government
funding to build the nation’s first small modular reactors and in the
next two weeks they will submit final bids. Two are expected to be selected
by the end of the year.

So far, so good, yet there are worries that the
first hurdle may be somewhat easier to clear than what follows. In recent
years planning has been the bane of construction companies of all stripes,
from housebuilders to infrastructure specialists, and there is talk that
the rollout of small modular reactors could be hampered by the same lengthy
regulatory and permission-seeking processes that have beset larger-scale
nuclear projects, in particular.

The first small modular reactor is not
expected to be up and running before 2035. “Planning is a major drain on
the time in the schedule,” said Alastair Evans, director of corporate and
government affairs at Rolls-Royce, the FTSE 100 engineering specialist that
has been promoting its water-cooled reactor for use in the UK for several
years. “There will be lessons that we can learn and the planning
inspectorate can learn from what they have just been through,” a
reference to the ten years taken for the Sizewell C development in Suffolk
to move from initial public consultation to gaining consent. Small modular
reactors can take up the space of one or two football pitches, have a
capacity of up to 500 megawatts and will employ between 1,000 and 2,000 on
site.

Yet it still takes an average of more than four years for so-called
national significant infrastructure projects, which include all power
stations over 50MW, to secure a development consent order, according to the
latest government estimates, an increase from about two and a half years in
2012. Research by Britain Remade, a pro-growth think tank, suggests that
the average construction cost for new nuclear infrastructure that has been
built in the UK since 2000 is £9.4 million per megawatt, adjusting for
inflation. That is more than four times the cost in South Korea, which has
adopted a fleet approach to expand its nuclear capacity. “A key problem
is, if you look at the planning system for nuclear power stations, it is
extremely bureaucratic, slow-moving and paperwork-intensive,” Sam
Dumitriu, head of policy at Britain Remade, said.

He cited the 44,000-page environmental impact assessment that Sizewell C produced as part of its planning application. …………………………….

 Times 21st June 2024

https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/uk-nuclear-power-plants-rollout-may-be-hit-by-planning-consent-f87z66bv3

June 22, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Gavin Newsom’s $12 Billion Radioactive Diablo Scam Could Soon Be Twisting In The Wind

-by Harvey Wasserman, 20 June 24,  https://www.downwithtyranny.com/post/gavin-newsom-s-12-billion-radioactive-diablo-scam-could-soon-be-twisting-in-the-wind

Diablo Canyon’s infamous $12 billion nuclear war is raging hot and heavy in Sacramento. Citizen action may soon decide the outcome.

In the midst of a massive budget crisis, Governor Gavin Newsom is slashing social programs left and right. But he still wants to subsidize PG&E’s two money-losing atomic reactors near San Luis Obispo. The cash he wants from the state comes as part of a $1.4 billion package he strong-armed through the legislature in 2022. Much of that is coming from the feds.

But now he wants $400 million from California taxpayers.

And the legislature— amidst a fierce public uproar— may be on the brink of a definitive “NO!” Safe energy groups like the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace are rallying public pressure to stop the bailout.    

The fight is doubly galling, because when he was Lieutenant-Governor, Newsom co-signed a 2017 landmark plan to phase out Diablo’s twin uninsured reactors. They have a long history of structural and legal problems. They are surrounded by at least a dozen significant seismic faults… and sit just 45 miles from the San Andreas.  

 

Now four decades of age, their innards are cracked, rotted and embrittled. They risk spewing apocalyptic clouds that could turn California into a radioactive wasteland. They regularly emit heat, chemical pollutants and radioactive carbon-14 into the eco-sphere. 

Rooftop solar, off-shore wind and advancing battery technologies have long since left Diablo in the dust on safety, price, reliability, efficiency and job creation. For at least several hours on most days now, the state gets more than 100% of its electricity from renewables.  

 

Photovoltaic panels in central California now regularly produce below-market electricity that is literally “too cheap to meter.” Without Diablo gumming up the grid, and with limits on how much locally-generated power can be sold out of state, rates would plummet with no serious threat of blackouts. 

Independent experts now calculate that it would cost California more than $12 billion in over-market pricing to run Diablo through 2030. The company itself concedes the cost would exceed $8 billion. PG&E has also petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to run Diablo through 2045, with potential excess costs gouging the public for tens of billions, accompanied by enormous job losses.  

Amidst a “Solartopian” tsunami of new renewables and storage batteries, Diablo expensively jams the grid and raises the risk of blackouts. It employs just 1500 workers, versus more than 70,000 in rooftop solar alone, not counting wind, efficiency and battery production. 

To better serve PG&E, Newsom’s personally appointed Public Utilities Commission has thrown the state’s rate structure into chaos, slashing at least 17,000 solar jobs while sticking California with the nation’s second-highest electric rates (behind Hawaii).

 

In 2022, Newsom trashed the nuclear phase-out he signed in 2017. With no public hearings and a strong-armed midnight vote, he demanded a $1.4 billion “forgivable loan” for PG&E, whose record profits went in part to the company’s CEO, who in 2022 was paid some $40 million.  

 Most Californians get zero power from Diablo. But Newsom wants to soak all taxpayers to cover the PG&E bailout and to foot the multi-billion dollar bills for its on-going over-market costs.

Fierce legislative resistance has put Diablo’s future in doubt.  Consumer and safe energy activists throughout the state are campaigning hard against the bailout. On June 15, the Legislature voted nearly unanimously to slash it by $400 million.  

 If the legislators and their green backers succeed, California’s transition to a non-radioactive carbon-free energy economy could create countless new jobs while saving the state billions… and ducking the next Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and/or Fukushima. 

With the world’s fifth-largest economy, California could join the world’s fourth-largest economy— Germany, which shut 19 reactors on the road to  converting to wind, solar and batteries— in a sustainable post-nuclear world.  

Harvey Wasserman co-hosts California Solartopia which airs most Wednesdays, 5-6 pm, at KPFK/Pacifica, 90.7fm-Los Angeles. He wrote Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth. He was arrested at Diablo Canyon in 1984.

 

June 22, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Norway To Consider Developing Nuclear Energy

By Charles Kennedy – Jun 21, 2024,

 Norway’s government appointed on Friday a committee tasked with
considering whether the country should develop nuclear energy as an
electricity source. Kristin Halvorsen, a former finance minister and
currently director of the Center for International Climate and
Environmental Research in Oslo, will lead the committee, which is set to
deliver its report with the findings by April 1, 2026. Norway ditched the
idea of nuclear as a power source in the 1970s, but it is now revisiting
the idea.

 Oil Price 21st June 2024

  https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Norway-To-Consider-Developing-Nuclear-Energy.h

June 22, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reinforced his party’s commitment to nuclear energy .

Rishi Sunak talks energy during Sizewell trip in Suffolk.  Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reinforced his party’s commitment to nuclear
energy during a tour of Sizewell B. Building permission for Sizewell C on
the Suffolk coast, which will generate 3.2 gigawatts (GW) of electricity,
was granted in July 2022 and was expected to cost £20bn. Quizzed about
whether government had received any more assurances on further sources of
private investment for the project, Mr Sunak told reporters: “We are
confident of delivery of our nuclear plant”. In its manifesto, Labour said
it would “end a decade of dithering” on nuclear power, and would ensure the
long-term security of the sector.

 BBC 19th June 2024

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmjjg56pz5po

June 21, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Very late and over budget: Why newest large nuclear plant in US is likely to be the last

Fereidoon Sioshansi Jun 20, 2024

With a lot of exaggerated fanfare, in early May 2024 the Georgia Power Company announced that the 1,114 MW Unit 4 nuclear power reactor at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Georgia, entered commercial operation after 11 years of construction.

The former CEO of the company reportedly had installed a TV screen in his office remotely monitoring the progress of the work at the construction site. It must have been the most boring show to watch since on most days very little was actually happening at the site. He was mostly watching delays.

Vogtle unit 3 began commercial operation in July 2023. The plant’s first two older reactors, with a combined capacity of 2,430 MW, began operations in 1987 and 1989, respectively. The Plant Vogtle’s total generating capacity is nearly 5 GW surpassing, the 4,210-MW Palo Verde nuclear plant near Phoenix in Arizona.

Construction of the last 2 reactors began in 2009 and was originally expected to cost $US14 billion with a start date in 2016 and 2017. But as often happens the project suffered construction delays and cost overruns – exceeding $US30 billion ($A45 billion).

It is the latest – and possibly the last – addition to the US nuclear installed capacity, which is currently around 97 GW and accounted for nearly 19% of domestic electricity production in 2023, making it the second-largest source of electricity generation after gas, which was around 43% last year. 

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 use the Westinghouse AP1000 design (cited enthusiastically by Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton this week) which includes new passive safety features that allow the reactors to shut down without any operator action or external power source. 

Two similar reactors were planned for South Carolina, but the utilities halted construction in 2017 amidst escalating costs and delays.

The Executive Director of American Nuclear Society (ANS) Craig Piercy congratulated Southern Company, the parent of Georgia Power Company, and Westinghouse:

“This milestone … secures a generational investment in clean energy. Now complete, Vogtle 3 and 4 will deliver 17 million MWhrs of carbon-free power to Georgia annually – equivalent to the energy from all California’s wind turbines – and will be available 24/7.”

Fair enough but Mr. Piercy failed to mention that it took 11 years and $US30 billion of ratepayer money to build it – few private investors can afford the time or the capital.

Nor did he mention that currently there are no other nuclear reactors under construction anywhere in the US and none are presently contemplated. It may be the end of an era despite ANS’ obviously biased praise of the technology.

The story is much the same in France where the state-owned nuclear power giant Électricité de France (EDF), which operates a fleet of 56 reactors in one of the most nuclear dependent countries in the world, has been struggling to complete its last reactor.

The 1.6 GW Flamanville plant in northwest France is 12 years behind schedule and more than four times over budget – for the usual reasons. A faulty vessel cover needs to be fixed, pushing operation date to 2026.

In the meantime, the estimated cost to construct 6 new nuclear reactors, ordered by President Emanuel Macron, has risen to €67.4 billion ($A110 billion), from the original €51.7 billion, and is likely to go higher before they are completed. Nuclear plants are not cheap…………………………………………………

One of the few places where new reactors are being built without long delays is China, but even there the scale of nuclear build is dwarfed by solar and wind by orders of magnitude. 

 In the past 10 years, more than 34 GW of nuclear power capacity were added in China, bringing the country’s number of operating reactors to 55 – barely shy of the 56 in France – with net capacity of 53.2 GW as of April 2024 (visual on right on original ). Some 23 reactors are reported under construction in China

Globally, nuclear, while a low-carbon and baseload form of generation, is struggling to make much of a dent despite a few isolated places where it is maintained on the agenda – generally by government fiat and through generous subsidies.

It is hard to come up with a conceivable scenario where its fortunes will significantly improve. A hefty global carbon tax, for example, may help but even in this case, it will simply make renewables, not nukes, even more attractive than they already are.

Fereidoon Sioshansi is editor and publisher of EEnergy Informer, and president of Menlo Energy Economics, based in California.  https://reneweconomy.com.au/why-the-newest-large-nuclear-plant-in-the-us-is-likely-to-be-the-last/

June 20, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear black hole could deal a knock-out blow to UK Labour’s renewable targets

Labour’s ambitious target for offshore wind could be quietly shelved to make way for the giant funding commitment to pay for Sizewell C nuclear power plant

DAVID TOKE, JUN 17, 2024,  https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/nuclear-black-hole-could-deal-a-knock?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1068034&post_id=145716547&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email—

Much of Labour’s manifesto commitments for clean energy, a state-owned ‘Great British Energy’ company to promote new technologies and funds to support buildings-based insulation and low carbon measures, have been widely flagged already. But there’s not much attention being given to two big, interlinked, threats to Labour’s clean energy strategy. One is the looming black financial hole that the incoming Labour Government will trigger as it gives the financial go-ahead for Sizewell C. The second is the problem of organising a much more rapid build-up of renewable energy than the Conservatives have managed to achieve. Both will involve the Treasury having to commit themselves to supporting forward spending, and we know that money is tight!

The central problem is that the cost of Sizewell C could sink the prospects of the renewables target. It is not difficult to see the problem. The costs of building Hinkley C, the sister plant of Sizewell C, have been growing and growing, and the plant has a long way to go before it is finished. The costs have reached an astonishing £33 billion for just 3.2 GW. Few independent analysts can be found who would bet against this cost increasing a lot further.

Unlike Hinkley C, Sizewell C is, to cut a longer story short, mostly going to have to be financed by the taxpayer or energy consumers. These costs will increase the numbers for the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement. The Treasury will have serious indigestion over this.

EDF is responsible for the costs of building Hinkley C. However it has refused to take responsibility for financing more than a small portion of Sizewell C. Moreover, it is proving very difficult to get any private investors to take responsibility for paying the costs of Sizewell C (no surprises there!). Essentially that means the Government are going to have to take responsibility for paying for the large bulk of the projects, and large cost overruns are all but inevitable. A lot of billions worth of red ink is going to have to be written into Treasury estimates if Sizewell C is to be given the financial go-ahead.

Offshore wind, onshore and solar farms will be a lot cheaper for the consumer than nuclear power from Sizewell C. Nevertheless, if the Treasury allows tens of billions to be allocated to underwrite the costs of Sizewell C then this could blow a huge hole in any efforts to get Labour’s renewable energy programme funded. To meet Labour’s manifesto target of quadrupling offshore wind capacity by 2030 then the Government will need to get lots and lots of contracts and offshore wind project contracts and leases issued pretty damn quick. That is as well as contracting lots of onshore wind and solar farms which are likely to be cheaper than offshore wind for the next few years at least.

The offshore wind commitment (for around 45 GW of new capacity by 2030) is going to require some funds to be underwritten by the Treasury. How much depends on what the Treasury chooses as the future price, say in 2030, of power from natural gas-fired power plant. This is because energy consumers will fund the difference between the guaranteed contract prices to be paid for offshore wind power production and the wholesale power price.

Since we do not know the price of gas in 2030 now, since we do not know what the global price of natural gas (in the form of LNG) will be, the Treasury has to make a choice. This choice, of course, is heavily laced with political implications. But at the moment the Treasury has chosen quite a low number for the future cost of natural gas. This makes offshore wind look relatively expensive to fund. I discussed this in a post I did in March, see here: How the Government is gaslighting us about the cost of offshore wind.

Renewable energy is much more popular with the public compared to nuclear power. But big energy corporations, not to mention the GMB union, are going to be piling in to try and make sure that approval of Sizewell C is given priority ahead of Labour’s apparently ambitious renewable energy commitment. That could mean that the bold offshore wind target is going to be quietly thrown in the waste bin.

June 19, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Australia’s Opposition leader Peter Dutton refuses to answer key questions about his nuclear power plan

Key question Peter Dutton refuses to answer about his nuclear power plan

  • Peter Dutton refused to answer question
  • He was probed about nuclear power policy

By NCA NEWSWIRE and ELEANOR CAMPBELL FOR NCA NEWSWIRE, 16 June 2024  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13534571/Key-question-Peter-Dutton-refuses-answer-nuclear-power-plan.html

Peter Dutton has again refused to reveal key details on the Coalition’s nuclear power policy, declaring he would consider announcing his alternative 2035 emissions reduction goal if the government released modelling on interim climate targets.

In a fiery interview on Sunday with Sky’s Sunday Agenda host Andrew Clennell, the federal Opposition Leader became defensive after being pressed to reveal the locations and costings of his six proposed nuclear power plants.

Mr Dutton said he would reveal the opposition’s energy plan within ‘weeks’ in March but again declined to spell out the full details of his vision for Australia’s energy transition.

‘What we’ve said, the sites that we’re looking at are only those sites where there’s an end-of-life coal-fired power stations,’ he told Sky on Sunday.

‘One of the main reasons is that people in those communities know that they’re going when coal goes and we have the ability to sustain heavy industry, we have the ability to keep the lights on.’

A recent report from peak scientific body CSIRO suggested that building a large-scale nuclear power plant in Australia would cost at least $8.5bn and take at least 15 years to deliver.

The Coalition has refused to confirm reports of the locations of up to seven proposed power sites, which according to speculation, include sites in two Liberal-held seats and four or five Nationals-held seats.

Potential sites include the Latrobe Valley and Anglesea in Victoria, the Hunter Valley in NSW, Collie in WA, Port Augusta in South Australia, and potentially a plant in the southwest Queensland electorate of Maranoa, held by Nationals leader David Littleproud.

When pressed on the locations of the sites, Mr Dutton responded: ‘We’ve said that we’re looking at between six and seven sites, and we’ll make an announcement at the time of our choosing, not of Labor’s choosing.’

When asked if a power plant would be placed on each of the unspecified sites, Mr Dutton did not answer directly, saying only that he would consider output and environmental impact.

The Opposition Leader was then asked if the plants would be government subsidised, and responded by saying all power sources, other than coal, receives funding.

‘We’ll make an announcement in due course, but I just make the point that wind and solar don’t work without government subsidy,’ he said.

Mr Dutton also came under scrutiny this week after revealing he would oppose a legislated 2030 carbon emissions target at the next election.

Asked directly if he would consider a 2035 interim reduction target, which would be legally required under the 2015 Paris agreement, the Liberal leader said he would ‘take advice’ from the treasury before changing climate legislation, citing concerns about the nation’s economic situation

‘I think we have a look at all of that information and if there were settings we need to change … it doesn’t mean exiting Paris or walking away from our clear commitment to be net zero by 2050,’ he said.

Mr Dutton was asked for a second time if he would set a 2035 target, but again spoke at length about cost of living pressures facing the country.

Trade Minister Don Farrell said Mr Dutton’s comments were ‘outrageous’ and argued watered down climate commitments would damage Australia’s standing with its international allies.

‘It’s beyond the pale to be perfectly honest,’ Mr Farrell said on Sunday.

‘We went to the last election committing to a 2030 target and despite what Mr Dutton might say, we’re on track to meet that target.’

June 17, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

German MPs snub Zelensky

Sat, 15 Jun 2024  https://www.sott.net/article/492290-German-MPs-snub-Zelensky—

Lawmakers from two German opposition parties, the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the new left-wing populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), refused to attend a speech by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky in the Bundestag on Tuesday. Both parties have expressed opposition to Kiev’s policies, warning they will only lead to further bloodshed.

Zelensky’s speech was the second he has delivered to the German parliament since the start of the conflict with Russia, although it was the first address he has made in person, rather than via video link. The Ukrainian leader thanked Berlin for its support and called on the country to ensure Russian President Vladimir Putin “loses this war.” The outcome of the conflict should leave no doubt about “who had won,” he insisted.

The event, however, was boycotted by all BSW MPs and most AfD lawmakers. Four members of the right-wing party, which placed second with 16% of the vote in last week’s EU parliamentary elections, did attend Zelensky’s speech, calling it “basic courtesy,” though party leaders sharply criticized the Ukrainian leader ahead of the session.

“We refuse to listen to a speaker in a camouflage suit,”Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla said, referring to Zelensky’s habit of wearing the military-style clothes. The two politicians also stated that his term has “expired” and that he now only remains “a president of war and beggary.” Ukraine was due to hold presidential elections in March, but Zelensky cancelled the vote, citing martial law. His term formally expired in May.

Ukraine doesn’t need a “president of war” but a “president of peace, [who] is ready to negotiate,” the AfD parliamentary leaders said. The BSW, a party formed by the German left-wing icon Sahra Wagenknecht, also issued a statement ahead of the event, in which it announced a boycott of the speech.

Zelensky is promoting “very dangerous” escalation, the document warned, arguing that the Ukrainian leader was ready to risk a nuclear conflict to achieve his goals. Such policies “should not be honored with a special event in the German Bundestag,” the statement said. The BSW maintained that it condemned Moscow’s military operation against Kiev but still pointed to Russia’s readiness for peace negotiations.

The parliamentary snub drew strong criticism from the German political establishment. Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s office condemned it as a “lack of respect,” adding that the Social Democrat was “very disturbed but not surprised” by the development.

A member of the parliament’s defense committee, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, was quick to accuse both parties of doing Moscow’s bidding.

Russia has repeatedly stated that it is ready to engage in peace talks, as long as the situation on the ground is taken into account. In autumn 2022, four former Ukrainian regions joined Russia following a series of referendums. Kiev never recognized the vote, and continues to demand that Moscow withdraw its troops from all the territories Ukraine claims as its own, including Crimea, before any talks start.

Comment: The level of “disobedience” shown by most of the AfD and all of the BSW lawmakers is unthinkable in most other European parliaments who in few cases do not have even a single elected member that dare to deviate from the much touted support for the western war efforts in Ukraine. The two German parties gained 22.1 % (15.9 % and 6.2 % respectively) of the votes at the recent European elections and had their best results in area of the former East Germany. For Germany as a whole this leaves Zelensky with the backing of more than 75 %, so for now he has little to worry about when it comes to milking more aid money out of Germany.

June 17, 2024 Posted by | Germany, politics | Leave a comment

UK Labour and Conservatives commit to nuclear power in manifesto

14th June, By Isaac Cooper @isaaccoopernews,  https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/24386336.labour-conservatives-commit-nuclear-power-manifesto/

The Labour Party have pledged to ‘ensure the long-term security’ of the nuclear industry as part of their manifesto.

The party set out their plan for government in their manifesto launch on Thursday, June 13 which said that a Labour government would back nuclear power.

The manifesto also said that small modular reactors (SMRs), will play ‘an important role’ in helping the UK achieve ‘energy security’ and ‘clean power’ while securing ‘thousands of good, skilled jobs.’

An SMR in West Cumbria has been mooted for some time and has the support of Cumberland Council leader, Mark Fryer, but the official green light has yet to be light by national government.

The Conservatives have also backed nuclear power and the Tory candidate for Penrith and the Solway, Mark Jenkinson, said he ‘welcomed’ the party’s commitment to nuclear power.

The Green Party have pledged to ‘phase out’ nuclear power which they say is ‘unsafe’ and much more expensive than renewables.

June 16, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

California legislators break with Gov. Newsom over loan to keep state’s last nuclear plant running

BY  MICHAEL R. BLOOD, June 14, 2024

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The California Legislature signaled its intent on Thursday to cancel a $400 million loan payment to help finance a longer lifespan for the state’s last nuclear power plant, exposing a rift with Gov. Gavin Newsom who says that the power is critical to safeguarding energy supplies amid a warming climate.

The votes in the state Senate and Assembly on funding for the twin-domed Diablo Canyon plant represented an interim step as Newsom and legislative leaders, all Democrats, continue to negotiate a new budget. But it sets up a public friction point involving one of the governor’s signature proposals, which he has championed alongside the state’s rapid push toward solar, wind and other renewable sources.

The dispute unfolded in Sacramento as environmentalists and antinuclear activists warned that the estimated price tag for keeping the seaside reactors running beyond a planned closing by 2025 had ballooned to nearly $12 billion, roughly doubling earlier projections. That also has raised the prospect of higher fees for ratepayers………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The legislators’ concerns were laid out in an exchange of letters with the Newsom administration, at a time when the state is trying to close an estimated $45 billion deficit. Among other concerns, they questioned if, and when, the state would be repaid by PG&E, and whether taxpayers could be out hundreds of millions of dollars if the proposed extension for Diablo Canyon falls through.

Construction at Diablo Canyon began in the 1960s. Critics say potential earthquakes from nearby faults not known to exist when the design was approved could damage equipment and release radiation. One fault was not discovered until 2008. PG&E has long said the plant is safe, an assessment the NRC has supported.

Last year, environmental groups called on federal regulators to immediately shut down one of two reactors at the site until tests can be conducted on critical machinery they believe could fail and cause a catastrophe. Weeks later, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission took no action on the request and instead asked agency staff to review it………………..

The questions raised by environmentalists about the potential for soaring costs stemmed from a review of state regulatory filings submitted by PG&E, they said. Initial estimates of about $5 billion to extend the life of the plant later rose to over $8 billion, then nearly $12 billion, they said.

“It’s really quite shocking,” said attorney John Geesman, a former California Energy Commission member who represents the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, an advocacy group that opposes federal license renewals in California. The alliance told the state Public Utilities Commission in May that the cost would represent “by far the largest financial commitment to a single energy project the commission has ever been asked to endorse.”……….. https://apnews.com/article/diablo-canyon-nuclear-newsom-reactors-california-45f15ac6e3a39f4fe7bbd05a9fd30d8b

June 15, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

94% of Americans want to end Ukraine war, but US rejects China peace deal, opposes talks with Russia

Polling shows 94% of people in the US and 88% in Western Europe want a negotiated settlement to end the war in Ukraine, but NATO opposes a peace proposal made by China and Brazil, and refuses to invite Russia to talks in Switzerland.

By Ben Norton, 9 June 24,  https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2024/06/08/end-ukraine-war-us-china-peace-deal-russia/

Polling shows that the vast majority of people in the United States and Western Europe want negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.

Despite this, NATO opposes a peace proposal made by China and Brazil, and refuses to invite Russia to a so-called “peace conference” that the Western powers are holding in Switzerland from June 15-16.

The Institute for Global Affairs of Eurasia Group, an avowedly pro-NATO and anti-Russia consulting firm that has worked extensively with Western governments, published a study this June titled “The New Atlanticism”.

The survey found that the 94% of people in the US and 88% in Western Europe want a negotiated settlement to end the war in Ukraine.

Just 17% of North Americans and Western Europeans say that the war must continue in order to weaken Russia.

(The poll allowed participants to choose two answers, which explains why the total is larger than 100%).

In May, China and Brazil introduced a joint proposal for peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

In their six-point plan, Beijing and Brasilia called for “an international peace conference held at a proper time that is recognized by both Russia and Ukraine, with equal participation of all parties as well as fair discussion of all peace plans”.

This contrasted with a so-called “peace conference” that the Western powers are holding in Switzerland from June 15-16. Russia was not invited to this NATO-backed “peace summit”, meaning there will not be any actual negotiations between the warring parties to try to end the war.

The Chinese government said it will not participate in the one-sided Switzerland conference, stating that it would only join if Russia was invited as well.

Beijing has made numerous peace proposals to try to end the war in Ukraine. These have been consistently opposed by the US and its NATO allies.

This comes at a very dangerous moment, when the US government is considering deploying more strategic nuclear weapons, aimed at China and Russia, Reuters reported.

Politico revealed in May that the Joe Biden administration had authorized Ukraine to use US weapons to launch attacks inside Russian territory.

French President Emmanuel Macron announced this June that Paris and Western allies had made an agreement to send military trainers to Ukraine. The Washington Post noted that this “is the latest sign that France and other allies may now be willing to put NATO country troops on Ukrainian soil”.

The US and its European allies have already had special operations forces and spies on the ground in Ukraine since the beginning of the conflict. The New York Times admitted this in June 2022. But the number of Western forces was quite small. NATO member states now plan to send even more.

June 14, 2024 Posted by | public opinion | Leave a comment

MP’s claim of support for nuclear power in Highlands challenged

 By John Davidson john.davidson@hnmedia.co.uk, Northern Times 11th June 2024

https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/msp-s-claim-of-support-for-nuclear-power-in-highlands-challe-352901/

An anti-nuclear campaigner has hit out at a claim made by Highland MSP Edward Mountain that people in the region want nuclear power.

The Conservative MSP hosted an energy summit in Strathpeffer last Friday, bringing together industry experts and members of the public.

The aim was to discuss the future of energy production and provision in the Highlands, with panellists including representatives from SSEN, Storegga, Highland Fuels, Highland Renewables, and the Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association.

June 13, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Scottish Greens brand Labour’s commitment to nuclear weapons ‘obscene and immoral’

Chris Jarvis 9 June 2024  https://bright-green.org/2024/06/09/scottish-greens-brand-labours-commitment-to-nuclear-weapons-a-obscene-and-immoral/

Labour’s commitment to the UK’s nuclear arsenal has been branded an ‘obscene and immoral waste of money’ by the Scottish Green Party. The party’s external affairs spokesperson Ross Greer went on to say that nuclear weapons are a ‘moral evil’ and urged voters who support a nuclear-free world to vote Green.

Greer said: “Nuclear weapons are a moral evil and an obscene and immoral waste of hundreds of billions of pounds. It is a vast money pit that could be far better spent eradicating poverty, tackling the climate crisis and transforming public services like the NHS.

“Trident does nothing to make us safer, and has no place in Scotland. The so-called ‘triple-lock’ that Labour is proposing is a multi-billion bung to a weapons industry already enjoying eye watering profits from the UK’s aggressive foreign policy.

The message from Sir Keir Starmer is very simple. If you care about peace and global security, don’t vote Labour.”

Greer added: “With Labour and Tories in lockstep on nuclear weapons, the only way we will disarm Scotland’s waters is as an independent nation.

“I look forward to the day when an independent Scotland can finally take its place on the world stage and join the dozens of other nations who have signed the Treaty on the Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons.”

June 12, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Keir Starmer’s policy on nuclear weapons

Prof Nick Megoran
School of geography, politics and sociology, Newcastle University

It is ironic that news of Keir Starmer’s plan to restate Labour’s commitment to “a ‘triple lock’ for the UK’s nuclear deterrent” (Keir Starmer to declare Labour as ‘party of national security’, 2 June) emerged on the same day that Toshiko Tanaka, a survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, addressed a spellbound meeting in London – organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Quakers – about her childhood experiences in 1945.

She spoke of seeing the initial explosion that killed every one of her classmates. She recounted regaining consciousness with a mouth full of dirt, running home to a mother who could not recognise her own badly burnt daughter, and smelling the lingering stench of burning flesh as bodies were cremated. To this day, she struggles to sleep as new sores break out on her skin, and cannot see a grilled tomato without remembering the ghastly sight of skin peeling off the dying who staggered through her neighbourhood like zombies.

Through the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the UK is committed to the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world. Starmer should formulate policy based on our legal and moral obligations, not a calculating attempt to win votes by looking tougher than the Tories.

Norman Rimmell
Darley Dale, Derbyshire

 Jeremy Corbyn is right – our political leaders are sticking their heads deeply in the sand. He could have added that if it’s possible for something to go wrong then you can be certain that one day it will. We may escape nuclear war, but accidental nuclear attack will, one day, happen. We’ve been extremely lucky to have escaped this so far, but eventually our luck will run out, unless we put a stop to this madness.

June 12, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »