nuclear-news

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

We should aim for nuclear disarmament – Plaid leader, UK

By Nick Bourne, BBC News, 9 June 24

Nuclear disarmament of the UK is something “we all should be aiming for”, according to Plaid Cymru’s leader Rhun ap Iorwerth.

But he said the UK’s defence force should be “well-funded”, able to “play their part in defending ourselves in peacekeeping roles” and ensures the welfare of military personnel after they leave service.

His comments come after Conservative minister Penny Mordaunt said in a general election debate Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin would doubt Labour’s willingness to use nuclear arms.

“I’m against the nuclear deterrent because I don’t think that is the kind of defence that we need and should be building in the 21st Century,” Mr ap Iorwerth told BBC Radio Wales’ Sunday Supplement……………………………

The Plaid leader shared a stage with leading figures from other political parties in Friday’s BBC general election debate……………………………….

The Green Party and the SNP both confirmed they opposed renewing Trident – arguing the money could be better spent on other areas of defence.  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj551318ejlo

June 11, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Dutch government is socialist when it comes to funding nuclear power.

Dutch Government supports construction of four new nuclear reactors

The incoming coalition government is looking to triple the funding available for new nuclear projects.

Alfie Shaw, June 7, 2024,  https://www.power-technology.com/news/dutch-government-supports-new-nuclear-projects/

The Netherlands’ incoming government is looking to support the construction of four new utility-scale nuclear power reactors as part of a plan to triple government funding available for nuclear projects.

According to Power Magazine, Silvio Erkens, a member of the centre-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which will be part of the new government, said that officials already have a tender planned to determine the technology for the first two nuclear plants.

The incoming government has also said it will consider acquiring a stake in the Borssele nuclear power plant should a decision be made to extend the operation of the single-unit plant beyond 2033.

In December 2022, the Dutch Council of Ministers designated the Borssele site as the preferred location for two new reactors and called for a feasibility study into extending the operation of the existing plant beyond 2033.

The new coalition government is now investigating with the plant’s operator and shareholders what will render its extended operation possible, providing a subsidy “to investigate whether it is technically feasible and safe to keep the nuclear power plant in production for longer”.

Borselle, which currently has one pressurised water reactor, has operated since 1973. In 2022, the power plant provided around 3.3% of the country’s electricity.

Zeeuwse Energie Houdstermaatschappij, a public limited company comprised of groups such as the province of Zeeland and various municipalities in the province, owns 70% of the plant, while German utility RWE owns the remaining 30%.

The incoming government reportedly will also earmark €14bn ($15.2bn) for the nuclear power construction programme, which currently has around €4.5bn in funding. Dutch officials created the programme last year, alongside efforts to extend Borssele’s life, to build new nuclear power generation as part of the country’s climate initiatives.

June 11, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Keir Starmer’s Trident triple lock: how Britain’s obsession with nuclear weapons has become part of election campaigns

The nuclear debate is also wrapped up in a gendered narrative that sees a commitment to nuclear weapons as strong, sensible, rational and masculine, and anything else as weak, irrational and feminine

Nick Ritchie, Professor, Department of Politics & International Relations, University of York, June 7, 2024  https://theconversation.com/keir-starmers-trident-triple-lock-how-britains-obsession-with-nuclear-weapons-has-become-part-of-election-campaigns-231834

With a campaign slogan of “change”, Keir Starmer is on a mission to persuade the electorate that the Labour party of 2024 is different to the one of 2019. Part of this is his unequivocal “triple lock” commitment to Trident, the UK’s nuclear weapon system.

At a time when the risk of a major European war is higher than it has been for decades, Starmer has reiterated his support for a massive programme to replace the Trident system (submarines, warhead, missiles and infrastructure), initiated by former Labour prime minister Tony Blair, in 2006. The triple lock is a commitment to the current programme to build four new ballistic missile submarines, keep one of the four always at sea on operational patrol and keep the system up to date.

Starmer is pushing back against Conservative claims that Labour is “weak”, “cannot be trusted” and is a “danger to national security”, accusations that have plagued his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong opponent of nuclear weapons.

Ideas of British national identity and Britain’s place in the world connect to a commitment to nuclear weapons. This identity is also tied to the idea of Britain as a military power in Europe, and Labour’s current identity of being strong on defence.

Prospective prime ministers are effectively required to publicly declare that they would be prepared to use nuclear weapons. Commitment to nuclear deterrence has become a de facto criterion for entering No 10.

Corbyn found this out in 2017 when he told the BBC’s Andrew Marr he would never use nuclear weapons first, or perhaps ever, if he were prime minister. In an unprecedented intervention, serving and former chiefs of the defence staff said that Corbyn’s response showed he “should not be trusted … with the nation’s defence and security”, and was unfit to be prime minister. Corbyn’s opposition to Trident is still being used to attack Starmer and Labour years later.

Starmer first signalled his commitment to Trident in 2021. Two years later, shadow defence secretary John Healey and shadow foreign secretary David Lammy declared their “unshakable” commitment to nuclear weapons as part of “Labour’s heritage”. But concerns about the morality and efficacy of using nuclear weapons have long divided Labour.

This is quite different to how nuclear weapons, which are based in Scotland, are framed by the Scottish National Party. In their conception of an independent Scotland’s national identity nuclear weapons are associated with imposed, undemocratic, Tory “imperialism” in which Labour has been complicit, and contrary to the SNP’s version of progressive internationalism. The SNP has said they would remove nuclear weapons from Scotland in the event of Scottish independence.

The nuclear debate is also wrapped up in a gendered narrative that sees a commitment to nuclear weapons as strong, sensible, rational and masculine, and anything else as weak, irrational and feminine.

The nuclear ‘consensus’

This Whitehall nuclear consensus closes down democratic debate on if, how and why the prime minister might use nuclear weapons. But views in the country are far from settled.

Recent polling shows 53% supports or strongly supports the UK having nuclear weapons, with about 30% opposed or strongly opposed. For women, the split is 50:50. For under 25s, it is 28% in favour and 43% against. In Scotland it is 35% in favour and 41% against (the rest say they don’t know).

The UK prime minister is one of a handful of people in the world with the power to inflict truly catastrophic levels of violence upon another society. Nuclear weapons should therefore be subject to intense scrutiny and debate, especially in a liberal democratic society. Starmer should appreciate this as a human rights lawyer, since practically any use of nuclear weapons would transgress international humanitarian and human rights law.

The nuclear programme is also hugely expensive. At a time when public services including health and education are under serious pressure, this arguably makes democratic debate even more necessary.

In March 2024 the House of Commons public accounts committee reported that the cost of the Ministry of Defence’s 10-year equipment plan was over budget by £17 billion, despite a budget increase of £46.3 billion. The greatest cause of this was the nuclear programme, where costs have increased by £38.2 billion (62%) since the last plan. The nuclear programme is now 34.5% of the £288.6 billion defence equipment plan, which itself is 49% of the total MoD budget.

In particular, the programme to deliver the new Dreadnought ballistic missile submarines has become the MoD’s highest priority. The department will redirect funds from conventional military programmes to support it if it can’t get more money from the Treasury. Labour and the Conservatives have both committed to increase the defence budget, especially for conventional forces, but have not said where the money will come from.

There are other political reasons why Starmer has come out strong for Trident. In particular, the thousands of jobs that the production and maintenance of nuclear-powered submarines supports in England and Scotland, and the power of the unions in the Labour party. The “triple lock” language also mirrors the triple lock commitment on pensions. This may appeal to older voters, who are more likely to vote (and vote Conservative).

Starmer’s “triple lock” might make sense politically from his perspective, but it is symptomatic of a nuclear consensus in Whitehall politics that brooks little dissent. The result is that debate on these difficult and serious security, economic, legal and moral choices on nuclear weapons routinely gets shut down and reduced to political performance. In the words of retired senior British Army officer General Sir Richard Shirreff, it infantilises a deadly serious issue.

June 9, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

No talk of peace at Zelensky’s ‘peace conference’ – Germany

Rt.com 6 Jun, 2024

Olaf Scholz has admitted that the high-profile summit is not aimed at ending the conflict

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is not traveling to Vladimir Zelensky’s so-called ‘peace conference’ to initiate peace talks, but to rally as many countries as possible to the Ukrainian leader’s side, he told parliament on Thursday.

In a speech focusing on security issues, Scholz told lawmakers that “there will be no peace negotiations” at the summit, which is due to take place in Switzerland next weekend.

“We are still a long way from that,” Scholz continued, adding that he intends to use the conference “to engage countries around the world in order to make it clear to Moscow: We stand by international law and the Charter of the United Nations.”

Zelensky invited more than 160 delegations to the Swiss conference, with Russia not receiving an invitation. While dozens of Western leaders and diplomats will attend – including Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, US President Joe Biden will skip the event, with the White House announcing this week that Vice President Kamala Harris will attend in his stead.

Beijing has snubbed the gathering entirely, with the Chinese Foreign Ministry explaining on Monday that any peace conference aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict must involve the equal participation of Moscow and Kiev, and the consideration of multiple peace plans…………………………………………more https://www.rt.com/news/598889-scholz-zelensky-peace-conference/—

June 9, 2024 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Scots urged to vote in anti-nuclear MPs to ‘take target off our backs’

The National By Adam Robertson, @adam_robertson9 Multimedia Journalist, 6 June 24

THE Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) has launched a major new project amid campaigning for the General Election, highlighting how Scots have “targets on our backs” due to the nuclear weapons on the Clyde.

The Scottish CND’s new campaign aims to push voters to back candidates who support the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

We previously reported how the SNP said they would support signing the document, which would entirely outlaw nuclear weapons across the globe, after achieving independence. …………………………………………..(Subscribers only) https://www.thenational.scot/news/24368745.scottish-cnd-launch-new-campaign-amid-general-election/

June 8, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Speaker Johnson, hear the prayers of nuclear weapons testing victims. It’s time to act.

2 B1 Radiation Exposure Compensation for impacted downwind communities is expiring Friday. Speaker Johnson, bring it to a vote.

James Moylan and Leslie Begay,  https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2024/06/04/congress-radiation-exposure-compensation-act-extension/73910553007/
The 20th century saw no shortage of patriotic Americans stepping up to serve our nation. We both know this well: As young men, we served in the U.S. military – Mr. Leslie Begay as a combat Marine in Vietnam, and Rep. James Moylan as a veteran of the Army. As a country, it is our solemn responsibility to support those who have made sacrifices on our behalf. 

We should also honor many thousands of Americans who did not enlist yet also sacrificed for our national security.

These patriots of the Manhattan Project and Cold War were unknowingly poisoned by their own government in the creation of our nuclear arsenal, and they deserve our support. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which aims to address those harms, will expire Friday unless Congress acts immediately.

This is urgent: Congress has only a few working days left to act before RECA expires.

As we mined uranium and built and tested nuclear weapons that defended our country, we exposed countless service members and communities across the country to dangerous, often deadly levels of radiation without their knowledge or consent. In some cases, we’re only just learning the full extent of that harm, with impacted Americans succumbing to new cancers every day.

RECA was created in 1990 to provide an apology and a small reimbursement for critical medical care for some victims. It is a valuable program, but it has excluded far too many Americans who were harmed, and nearly 35 years later, it is still woefully inadequate despite years of studies and reports proving the need for improvement.

In Guam, for example, a 2005 report determined that residents during nuclear testing in the Pacific received substantial unwarranted radiation and should be eligible for RECA. Yet nearly 20 years later, they are still awaiting recognition and support.

Additionally, uranium workers are only eligible for RECA if they were employed through 1971, despite a flood of studies showing that they faced just as grave health impacts after that year. This means that patriotic Americans like Mr. Begay have been suffering for decades with no avenues for support.  

Uranium miner lost both lungs due to radiation exposure

Mr. Begay was born and raised in the Navajo Nation. After serving in Vietnam, he came home and spent eight years mining the uranium that built our nuclear weapons. He was given a hard hat and no mask, was never told he was being poisoned, and he ended up losing both lungs due to radiation exposure. Given just a month to live, he received a double lung transplant. As he recovered, he decided to dedicate his remaining years to helping his people and improving RECA. 

As lucky as he feels to have a new set of lungs, his health issues are far from over. With no cancer center or veterans’ hospital on the Navajo Nation, he had to move away from his wife and grandkids to live near a hospital in Mesa, Arizona, so that he could attend almost weekly medical appointments. He is on 22 medications that he’ll take for the rest of his life – and they don’t come cheap.

He has had to sell all his cattle to pay for these expenses, and sometimes he and his wife don’t know where the money will come from to cover his next medical bill. Even worse – he’s just had a biopsy because of a possible new cancer diagnosis.  

Oppenheimer nuclear fallout still kills:Time is running out for American victims of nuclear tests. Congress must do what’s right.

The people of Guam and miners like Mr. Begay are far from alone.

Across the West, communities living downwind of nuclear testing – including those downwind of the very first nuclear test in New Mexico – were excluded from RECA seemingly arbitrarily.

Victims of illegally stored nuclear waste in Missouri have also suffered from devastating illnesses, with nowhere to turn.  

US creation of nuclear arsenal sacrificed our own people

The United States asked its people for a great deal of sacrifice to win the Cold War – some willingly as part of their service and many thousands unknowingly.

We have a duty now to take care of everyone sickened by their own government in the creation of our nuclear arsenal. It’s long past time that Congress does its job and improves RECA so these patriotic Americans can get the recognition and help they so richly deserve.

Oscar honors ‘Oppenheimer,’but what about Americans still suffering from nuke tests?

Some have called for a plain extension of RECA as is, but we know that would only be an extension of injustice. We must not blindly extend such an obviously flawed program, knowing that it would leave so many Americans behind. 

On May 16, we stood together with dozens of advocates who had traveled to Washington, D.C., from across America to fight for RECA. They traveled on behalf of their loved ones – many of whom are sick and dying – and pleaded with Congress: Don’t let us go home without good news; don’t keep letting our people die.  

In March, armed with new information about the true scope of Americans harmed by our Cold War nuclear program, the Senate passed a bill with overwhelming bipartisan support to hugely improve RECA.

Now, that bill is sitting on House Speaker Mike Johnson’s desk waiting to be brought to a vote.

Speaker Johnson: Please hear our prayers. It’s time to finally support these patriots, harmed by their own government, and get them the justice they deserve.  

Rep. James Moylan, Guam’s delegate in the 118th Congress, is a lead sponsor of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2023. He is an Army Veteran and a native of Guam from the village of Tumon. 

Mr. Leslie Begay is an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation and a resident of Coyote Canyon, New Mexico. He is a post-1971 uranium miner, Vietnam War veteran and volunteer member of the Navajo Uranium Radiation Victims Committee. He previously worked at Fort Wingate Army Depot. 

June 7, 2024 Posted by | health, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Stockpiling nuclear weapons? That will do nothing for national security, Keir Starmer

Until the UK and other nuclear states are brave enough to disarm, the Doomsday Clock will keep ticking towards midnight.
Until the UK and other nuclear states are brave enough to disarm, the Doomsday Clock will keep ticking towards midnight

Jeremy Corbyn,  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/05/stockpiling-nuclear-weapons-national-security-keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn

Seventy-seven years ago, a group of scientists created a symbolic Doomsday Clock to measure humanity’s proximity to self-destruction, or “midnight”. The hands move closer to – or further away from – midnight, depending on what existential threats exist at that particular time. Addressing the UN general assembly last year, the UN secretary-general, António Guterres, announced that the clock had moved to 90 seconds to midnight, declaring that humanity was perilously close to catastrophe. “This is the closest the clock has ever stood to humanity’s darkest hour,” he said. “We need to wake up – and get to work.” Guterres named three perilous challenges. One, extreme poverty. Two, an accelerating climate crisis. And three, global nuclear war.

“Lie flat in a ditch and cover the exposed skin of the head and hands.” In 1980, Margaret Thatcher’s government published a pamphlet, Protect and Survive, advising people what to do in the event of a nuclear attack. In what was in essence a DIY handbook, people were instructed to hide under a table, place bodies of dead relatives in another room or, if outside, lie on the floor and hope for the best. Adopting an optimistic attitude toward our extinction, the 32-page booklet was ridiculed by a population that knew there was no survival kit for nuclear annihilation.

The government no longer distributes booklets that advise us how to survive nuclear war. Instead, it buries its head in the sand entirely, turning a blind eye to the fact that we are getting closer and closer to midnight. After a period of gradual decline that followed the end of the cold war, the number of operational nuclear weapons has risen again. There are now more than 12,500 warheads around the world, with 90% belonging to Russia and the United States alone.

Which brings us to Keir Starmer’s most recent speech. “National security will always come first,” he said, as he pledged to increase defence spending and update Britain’s nuclear arsenal. He is right that security is important, but endless escalation is not the answer. What about standing up to the fossil-fuel giants jeopardising the security of our planet? Or abolishing the two-child benefits cap to end atrocious levels of food insecurity across our country? If he really cared about global insecurity, he would defend a foreign policy of peace and human rights, to ensure we get on with our neighbours in pursuit of a more stable world.

Ever since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, many of us have warned of the rising risk of nuclear escalation – a risk that was heightened last year when Russia announced plans to halt participation in New Start, the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty with the US. In a recent worrying development, Kyiv intelligence sources have reported that a Ukrainian drone has targeted a long-range radar deep inside Russia, the primary function of which is to alert the security forces of a nuclear attack.

It is estimated that a nuclear war between Russia and the US could kill 200 million people in the near term. The former defence secretary Ben Wallace has previously said he expects the UK to be at war by the end of this decade, which is used as a basis for a continued increase in our already bloated defence budget. The Labour party has also signalled it will raise defence spending. But why can’t our media ask politicians some simple questions: what are you doing to prevent the descent into a protracted, all-out-war with Russia? Why can’t you learn from Latin American and African countries and establish zones of peace?

Meanwhile, nuclear threats have loomed over the Middle East because our political leaders lack the ability and willingness to facilitate de-escalation and diplomacy. Our government could have called for a ceasefire in Gaza from the very beginning. They instead ignored warnings from the anti-war movement for de-escalation – and came far too close to an all-out conflict with Iran. Even without the involvement of more global players with nuclear capabilities, the human consequences of such a war would have been catastrophic for the entire world. Remember, doomsday need not be nuclear for it to be an extinction-level event; the first two months of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza produced more greenhouse gases than the annual emissions of 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries combined. The only winners are the arms companies making huge profits from death and destruction.

Many justify their entertainment of the prospect of mass extinction with the myth of nuclear deterrence. There are several examples that show the threat of nuclear retaliation has failed to deter an invasion. And there are several factors to explain why, when war has been averted, it was not the threat of destruction that got people to the negotiating table. Ultimately, we should not have to debate the failures of deterrence theory. Just speaking to the descendants of the survivors of Hiroshima or Nagasaki – known as the hibakusha – should be enough to dissuade our political class from their red-button grandstanding.

Some may say that war is a bad time to talk about nuclear disarmament. In reality, there is no better time to do so. If the next government wants to be a global leader, it would advance the cause for nuclear disarmament by signing the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which bans the development, production, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Currently, it cannot even honour the treaties it has already signed. Our government claims it is still committed to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (signed by Harold Wilson in 1968), but its stockpiles speak louder than words.

Security is not the ability to threaten and destroy your neighbour. Security is getting on with your neighbour. It’s giving children a habitable future. It’s ensuring people have a roof over their head. And it’s when everybody has enough resources to live a happy and healthy life. A report from 2020 calculated that the government spent £8,300 every minute on nuclear weapons that year. Imagine if we instead spent that money on renewable energy, social housing, public healthcare, schools and lifting children out of poverty?

Many of us grew up with the real and terrifying threat of nuclear destruction during the cold war. I don’t want our children learning how to duck and cover in preparation for its return. Those who beat their chests in the name of national security must know that, in the event of a nuclear war, nobody wins. If our politicians care about the legacy they leave behind, they may want to consider the following possibility: if they carry on down this path, there may not be anybody around to remember them at all.

  • Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour party from 2015 to 2020

June 6, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Jeremy Corbyn was smeared for rejecting the use of nuclear weapons – but he was right,

Corbyn was smeared for rejecting the use of nuclear weapons – but he was right  https://leftfootforward.org/2020/01/corbyn-was-smeared-for-rejecting-the-use-of-nuclear-weapons-but-he-was-right/,  Kate Hudson

– It’s time to smash the narrative that using nuclear weapons is ‘patriotic,

June 6, 2024 Posted by | politics, Reference archives, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Corporate lobbying heats up around governments’ nuclear power plans despite concerns from anti-nuclear advocates

“The nuclear industry and the government are so tightly entwined that you would have difficulty finding some kind of air space in between them. You have, for example, nuclear industry people that get jobs in the government. It’s a revolving door.”

Critics say nuclear too costly and slow to build while supporters back it as a climate solution

Investigative Journalism Foundation, KATE SCHNEIDER, 6 JUNE, 24

“…………………………….. Fears of nuclear meltdowns have long stymied the expansion of nuclear power across Canada. However, with Canada newly committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, the past few years have spurred a new wave of support for nuclear power development.

Yet, some opposition MPs and analysts worry that the recent embrace of nuclear power by governments in Canada has been a result of lobbying by an influential industry more intent on turning a profit than hitting climate targets.

“We’ve got a very, very powerful nuclear special-interest lobby, and we don’t have politically powerful lobbies for energy efficiency or wind or solar,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance and a former Toronto Hydro commissioner. “As a result, our political leaders are making bad decisions.”


Last July, the Ontario government announced the largest expansion of nuclear power in Canada in decades. It intends to add a 4,800-megawatt extension to the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, one of the biggest nuclear power plants in the world.

The site is located on Lake Huron in the northern Ontario municipality of Kincardine — just over 200 km northwest of Toronto — and, while owned by the provincial government, is operated by private company Bruce Power.

Last week, Bruce Power registered a new lobbyist in the province to discuss the “successful refurbishment of Ontario’s nuclear fleet” as well as what it sees as overly onerous regulations, offering to help the government “identify areas for red tape reduction in several sectors.”

The lobbyist, Daniel Levitan, is currently employed by government relations firm Rubicon Strategy. Like several other nuclear industry lobbyists identified by the IJF, Levitan previously worked for the government. He worked for 10 years in external relations for Hydro One, Ontario’s largest electricity distribution utility, starting in 2013. Before that, he was a director of communications and senior policy adviser for several Ontario government departments.

Neither Bruce Power nor Daniel Levitan responded to requests for comment.

Competition for the contract for new nuclear reactors at the Bruce site has also spurred on a lobbying battle between AtkinsRéalis (formerly known as SNC-Lavalin) and Westinghouse, as reported by The Logic last month.

AtkinsRéalis employs both Jean Chrétien, the former Liberal prime minister, and Mike Harris, the former Progressive Conservative premier of Ontario, as the co-chairs for their public relations campaign.

The biggest surge in lobbying, however, has perhaps been around funding for small modular reactors (SMRs)……………..

In February last year, Natural Resources Canada launched a funding program offering $29.6 million to encourage the development of SMRs.

Companies working on the technology are eager to take advantage of federal funds. Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC), a Seattle-based nuclear technology company, lobbied the government on eight different occasions last year seeking money for “Canada’s first small modular nuclear reactor.”


BWXT Canada Ltd., a nuclear reactor manufacturer, is also registered to lobby at the federal level, hoping to “examine new funding opportunities for nuclear energy and its operations in Canada.”

BWXT Canada has lobbied key ministers and government officials this year, including Jonathan Wilkinson, minister of energy and natural resources; Mairead Lavery, president and CEO of Export Development Canada; Jean-Yves Duclos, minister of public services and procurement; and Ben Chin, one of the prime minister’s top advisers.

BWXT Canada announced in April that it was investing $80 million to expand its Cambridge, Ont. headquarters, increasing its manufacturing capacity to meet the growing demand for nuclear technologies, including SMRs.

BWXT said, “We are interested in updating all levels of government about our operations in Canada, our expansion project at our Cambridge facility and how we are supporting Ontario’s nuclear projects and Canada’s clean energy targets.” USNC did not respond to a request for comment.

“The nuclear industry and the government are so tightly entwined that you would have difficulty finding some kind of air space in between them.” – Susan O’Donnell, St. Thomas University

Industry groups such as the Canadian Nuclear Association and the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries have also been lobbying officials in the past year, as have several unions including the International Union of Operating Engineers. The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers is also registered to lobby in Ontario.

Reached for comment, Snigdh Baunthiyal, a spokesperson for the Canadian Nuclear Association, provided a statement to the IJF that said, “We have asked for the Federal government’s support to accelerate the deployment of strategic tools such as ITCs [investment tax credits] and CMT [corporate minimum tax] to ensure Canada retains its leadership role and meets its domestic and international climate and energy security objectives.” 

None of the other organizations responded to requests for comment.

In total, four nuclear power plants currently operate across Canada, producing about 12.7 per cent of Canada’s electricity. Three plants — with 16 operational reactors — are located in Ontario, while a fourth housing a single reactor is in Lepreau, New Brunswick.

Alongside the privately operated Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, the other two Ontario-based plants in Pickering and Darlington are operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG), a Crown corporation.

OPG has lobbied the federal government 21 times so far this year regarding “issues pertaining to federal legislation, policies and programs with respect to OPG’s existing nuclear operations or new nuclear opportunities including small modular reactors,” according to its lobbying registration.

The Darlington site is already halfway through a refurbishment costing $12.8 billion while the Ontario government recently announced plans to refurbish four of the reactors at the Pickering plant starting in 2027.

Construction of an SMR at Darlington is scheduled to be completed in 2028. Last July, the Ford government announced that this SMR would soon be followed by an additional three at the site, projected to go online by the mid-2030s.

Jennifer Stone, a spokesperson for OPG, said that these projects will help the province “meet the growing demand for clean electricity for decades to come. 

“As OPG helps secure Ontario’s clean energy future, these projects also generate good jobs and drive economic growth across the province both at our facilities and through Ontario’s robust nuclear supply chain,” added Stone.

NB Power plans to build an SMR at its Lepreau site in conjunction with ARC Clean Technology Inc. 

NB Power acknowledged the IJF’s request for comment, but said it would be unable to provide a response before deadline.

While Canada’s only operating nuclear plants are in Ontario and New Brunswick, the uranium used to fuel them comes entirely from Saskatchewan, largely via uranium mining giant Cameco.

Cameco engaged in a lobbying campaign in March targeting various federal government officials, including those at Natural Resources Canada and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. According to its most recent lobbying registration, Cameco wants to “advocate for the federal government to include nuclear energy as a major component in Canada’s greenhouse gas/carbon reduction strategy.” Cameco is also registered to lobby in Saskatchewan.

Dale Austin, Cameco’s director of government relations and one of its registered lobbyists, previously worked as a director of the policy analysis and coordination division for Natural Resources Canada as well as a director of policy coordination for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Susan O’Donnell is an adjunct research professor at St. Thomas University and a core member of the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick. O’Donnell said the influence of the industry extends beyond what appears in the official lobby registry.

“‘Do they even need to lobby?’ is what I would say. Because they’ve got all their people in the government,” said O’Donnell. 

“The nuclear industry and the government are so tightly entwined that you would have difficulty finding some kind of air space in between them. You have, for example, nuclear industry people that get jobs in the government. It’s a revolving door.”

Worries over safety risks and environmental implications of nuclear power have been around for decades, embodied by incidents like the Chornobyl and Fukushima disasters.

However, the concerns expressed today by anti-nuclear advocates seem to revolve more around nuclear being too costly or excessively slow to build.

“It just doesn’t make any economic sense. And it doesn’t make any climate sense,” said Gibbons. “Wind and solar, combined with storage, can keep our lights on at less than half the cost of new nuclear reactors.”

…………………………………O’Donnell said that given Canada’s commitment to decarbonize its electricity grid by 2035, the idea that new nuclear power projects, especially SMRs, will be ready in time is simply unrealistic. 

New nuclear reactors typically take 10 to 15 years to build. And besides the first Darlington SMR, no other SMRs in Canada will be operational until at least the early 2030s.

“On the other hand, we do have mature technologies, which are wind and solar, we do have [storage] technology that’s coming along tremendously,” said O’Donnell. “We’ve got the technology now if we’re serious about meeting our targets.”…………….. https://theijf.org/nuclear-power-lobbying

June 6, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

UK Labour talks up nuclear weapons to banish Corbyn’s shadow

Keir Starmer says he would be prepared to use nuclear weapons, unlike his predecessor.

JUNE 3, 2024  BY ANDREW MCDONALD,  https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-labour-talks-nukes-escape-jeremy-corbyn-shadow/—

LONDON — Want to show you’ve moved on from your far-left predecessor? Try a nuclear strike.

Labour leader Keir Starmer on Monday told reporters he would push the button on Britain’s nuclear deterrent if necessary, as the party aims for election victory on July 4 and tries to demonstrate it’s moved on from the tenure of former party chief Jeremy Corbyn.

“On the nuclear deterrent, it is fundamental, it is a vital part of our defense — and of course that means we have to be prepared to use it,” Starmer said.

In keeping with Western nuclear doctrine, Starmer did not set out the circumstances in which he would actually use the U.K.’s nuclear arsenal — at the center of which is the Trident program of nuclear submarines based in Scotland.

But the commitment alone was an eye-opening moment in the campaign — and an important one for Starmer, who has sought to define himself in contrast to Corbyn, the NATO skeptic and lifelong opponent of nuclear weapons who shifted Labour to the left from 2015 to 2019.

Distance from Corbyn

Corbyn was a long-time supporter of the anti-nukes Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and voted against renewing Trident in 2016, after giving his MPs a free vote on the issue. Despite his own views, however, he did not shift his party’s overall position on the nuclear deterrent, and Labour manifestos under Corbyn did not commit to scrapping Trident.

But Corbyn did come under fire when, in one of his first interviews as Labour leader in 2015, he said he would instruct the U.K.’s defense chiefs never to use nuclear weapons if he became prime minister. “I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons,” he said at the time. “I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible.”

Starmer, who served under Corbyn as a shadow minister, has tried to distance himself from his former boss since becoming leader — despite initially talking up the policies of his “friend” while running for the party leadership in 2020. Corbyn has since been expelled from the party.

Speaking Monday, Starmer sought to hammer home the party’s new direction under his leadership.

With my changed Labour Party, national security will always come first,” Starmer said.

The Labour leader also stressed that his top team is fully behind him in supporting the nuclear deterrent — even though his Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Deputy Leader Angela Rayner joined Corbyn to vote against the renewal of Trident in 2016.

“I lead this party, I’ve changed this party … and I’ve got my whole shadow cabinet behind me,” Starmer said.

June 5, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK Labour leader Starmer says he is prepared to use nuclear weapons

COMMENT. When I contemplate the situation where I am incinerated, along with millions of others, by a nuclear weapon, ….

I get no satisfaction at all, from thinking that in Russia, millions of civilians, just like me, are getting incinerated in return.

No satisfaction at all. What have we become? Labour is useless

BBC News, Sam Francis, Political Reporter, 3 June 24

Sir Keir Starmer has said he would be prepared to use nuclear weapons if needed to defend the UK as he set out Labour’s defence plans.

The Labour leader said “security will always come first” under his leadership and claimed his party has left behind Jeremy Corbyn’s opposition to the Trident nuclear weapons system.

If elected, Sir Keir said he would increase defence spending and update the UK’s nuclear arsenal.

Conservative defence secretary Grant Shapps said Labour represented a “danger to our national security”………………………..

The Labour party was split when the House of Commons last voted to renew the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system, with 140 of the party’s 230 MPs defying leader Mr Corbyn to back the motion.

But Sir Keir – who did vote to renew Trident – claimed he had his “whole shadow cabinet behind me” on plans to maintain the nuclear deterrent.

“This is a changed Labour party and the most important thing is I voted in favour of a nuclear deterrent,” he said.

“I lead from the front, I’ve always lad from the front.”

Asked by BBC Political Editor Chris Mason, if he would authorise the firing of nuclear weapons if he was prime minister, Sir Keir said: “We have to be prepared to use it…………………..

He committed Labour to a “nuclear triple lock”: continuing to build four new nuclear submarines in Barrow-in-Furness, maintaining Britain’s at-sea deterrent, and delivering all future upgrades for submarine patrols.

The Trident system, based near the Firth of Clyde, includes four nuclear-powered Vanguard-class submarines, missiles and warheads.

Each submarine is designed to carry 16 Trident missiles, capable of delivering multiple warheads – but in recent years, they have carried eight missiles each, with a maximum of 40 warheads per boat.

The UK is already in the process of building four new nuclear submarines in Barrow in-Furness at a cost of £31bn over the lifetime of the programme. The country maintains a continuous at sea nuclear deterrent with its existing fleet.

The Conservatives have also commitment to continue this polices as well as delivering future upgrades.

SNP Spokesman Martin Docherty-Hughes said: “In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, it is objectively wrong that Keir Starmer would funnel billions of pounds of public money into keeping weapons of mass destruction on our doorstep in Scotland, while families are still living in poverty after 14 years of Tory austerity, and our budget from the UK government keeps getting slashed.

“Nuclear weapons have no place in Scotland, and only a vote for the SNP in July will protect Scotland’s interest against the Labour and Tories – neither of whom will do what the people in Scotland want and scrap Trident nuclear weapons for good.”

In another break from Mr Corbyn’s leadership, Sir Keir used his speech to push for the UK to assume a “leading” role in Nato.

Sir Keir’s predecessor criticised Nato’s role and expansion, particularly in conflicts he found unjust – though did not push for the UK to leave.

These positions led to accusations from its opponents that Labour was weak on national security during Mr Corbyn’s tenure.​………………………………………………… more https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czvvy0ppdxko—

June 5, 2024 Posted by | politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The US Empire Isn’t A Government That Runs Nonstop Wars, It’s A Nonstop War That Runs A Government

CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, JUN 01, 2024,

https://open.substack.com/pub/caitlinjohnstone/p/the-us-empire-isnt-a-government-that?r=cqey&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

It clears up a lot of confusion when you understand that the US empire is not a national government which happens to run nonstop military operations, it’s a nonstop military operation that happens to run a national government.

The wars are not designed to serve the interests of the United States, the United States is designed to serve the interests of the wars. The US as a country is just a source of funding, personnel, resources and diplomatic cover for a nonstop campaign to dominate the planet with mass military violence and the threat thereof. 

This campaign is not waged to benefit the American people or their security, but to benefit the loose international alliance of plutocrats and unelected empire managers whose wealth and power are premised on the world order of continuous violence, exploitation and extraction which the campaign of global domination upholds. This campaign of global domination and its manifestations as a whole may be referred to as the US empire, which has very little in common with the US as an individual nation

Until you understand this, nothing the US government or the US war machine does will make sense. You won’t understand why military operations are being waged which don’t seem to benefit the American people in any way, and which if anything actually harm the national security interests of the United States. You won’t understand why US foreign policy remains the same no matter who’s in office, regardless of party or platform. You won’t understand why the US and its allies do crazy things that otherwise make no sense for governments to do, like backing an increasingly unpopular genocide in Gaza, starting a cold war with China, or tempting nuclear armageddon with Russia.

And the answer is that these aggressions are not happening because they benefit the US as a nation, or even because they serve the political agendas of any elected officials. The nonstop violence is a means to a completely different end, and is almost an end in and of itself — benefiting war profiteers, shoring up geostrategic control, and expanding the sphere of the US empire’s particular brand of global capitalism.

There’s the nonstop worldwide military operation, and then there’s the theatrical set pieces of an official government slapped together in the foreground which we’re all meant to pretend has something to do with all the wars and militarism we are seeing. In reality the war machine just does what it’s going to do while the official elected suits in Washington put on these performances where they argue about abortion and Donald Trump to make it look like the US has a real government that’s making real decisions.

It was decided long ago that war is too important to be left to the will of the electorate, so now there’s this fake dummy political system that the American people are given to play with so they won’t meddle with the gears of the imperial machine. The local inhabitants of the hub of the globe-spanning empire are kept too propagandized, entertained, distracted, busy, poor, and sick to have a truth-based relationship with what’s being done in their name around the world, and if they do make some space in their life to become politically engaged they are herded into a kayfabe two-party system where both factions support war, militarism, imperialism, plutocracy and ecocidal capitalism but put immense amounts of energy into empty culture warring over issues that nobody with any real power cares about.

Trying to talk about this to people who are still plugged into the mainstream imperial worldview is like if Amazon had a children’s cartoon show called Andy Amazon & Friends, and the public believed the cartoon show was Amazon — they didn’t know anything about the sprawling trillionaire megacorporation that’s devouring the global economy. You’d try to talk about the gargantuan e-commerce company and they’d think you were talking about the cartoon, and object that what you’re saying doesn’t line up with what they know about the show and its characters. 

Once you see the corporation behind the cartoon, once you see the empire behind the performative puppet show of official politics, you see it everywhere. You see it in the movements of the imperial war machine. You see it in the news headlines. You see it in the phony justifications and narratives that are being spouted by the western political-media class. You see it in our education system. You see it throughout our vapid mainstream western culture of interminable diversion and capitalist indoctrination.

And you stop caring about the puppet show. You stop caring about presidential elections, about Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump, about the culture war wedge issue of the day and the latest hot topic that everyone’s saying you need to take a position on. It becomes as interesting to you as some Youtube video your kid has on in the background when you’re busy dealing with a home emergency.

And the behavior of the empire absolutely is an emergency. The escalations against Russia and China that these freaks are pushing have the world on a trajectory that’s going to get us all killed, and the horrors they are inflicting in Gaza and elsewhere are creating a nightmare on earth right here and now. The empire is only getting crazier and more violent as its planetary domination becomes more challenged, and until people can see it for what it really is, it’s going to be very hard to build up the necessary public opposition against it to use the power of our numbers to force them to stop.

June 4, 2024 Posted by | culture and arts, politics, USA | Leave a comment

UK’s nuclear deterrent key to Starmer’s plans to keep Britain safe

Labour leader Keir Starmer will meet with forces veterans and a group of his party’s candidates when he campaigns in the North West of England on Monday

Independent, Richard Wheeler, 3 June 24

Sir Keir Starmer will pitch Labour as the “party of national security” as he seeks to switch attention to defence matters during the general election campaign.

The Labour leader is expected to meet with forces veterans and a group of his party’s candidates when he campaigns in the North West of England on Monday.

Sir Keir will reaffirm his commitment to a “nuclear deterrent triple lock” as well as his ambition to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the size of the economy.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has made clear he wants to meet the 2.5 per cent target by 2030 although Labour has so far declined to outline its timeline, only noting they would do so when economic conditions allow.

Labour says its nuclear deterrent triple lock involves: a commitment to construct the four new nuclear submarines in Barrow-in-Furness; maintaining Britain’s continuous at-sea deterrent; and the delivery of all future upgrades needed for the submarines to patrol the waters.

The Vanguard-class submarines are due to be replaced by the bigger Dreadnought-class submarines in the 2030s.

Between £31 billion and £41 billion has been set aside for the wider programme of replacing the Vanguard-class submarines, according to figures from the House of Commons Library.

Sir Keir has been attempting to shift perceptions of Labour’s defence stance following the party’s time under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, a long-standing critic of Nato and Trident………………………………..

” alongside our unshakeable commitment to Nato, an incoming Labour government will introduce a ‘triple lock’ commitment on our nuclear deterrent – providing vital protection for the UK and our Nato allies in the years ahead, as well as supporting thousands of high paying jobs across the UK.”

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said: “Twelve members of Starmer’s front bench team, including Angela Rayner and David Lammy, voted against Trident. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-keir-starmer-nuclear-deterrent-monday-b2555401.html

June 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Labour pledges to launch Great British Energy ‘within months’ of general election victory: it includes nuclear power.

 The Labour Party has unveiled more details on its plans to set up a
publicly owned energy company, Great British Energy, confirming its
intention to launch the firm as a priority should the Party win July’s
general election.

The Great British Energy website went live late on
Thursday night (30 May), providing more information on how the company
would work and the benefits it could bring in terms of lower energy bills,
new green jobs and future-proofing the UK.

Labour leader Kier Starmer has
stated that setting up Great British Energy would be one of his
government’s first steps after the election on 4 July. Great British
Energy would focus on energy generation in the first instance, the website
confirms. It would be backed with public funding from Labour’s
slimmed-down multi-billion-pound annual green investment coffers.

This funding would be raised through an enhanced windfall tax on North Sea oil
and gas operators, who already pay a 75% tax rate which would be hiked to
78% under a Labour Government. Labour wants to use Great British Energy
support both mature renewable and nuclear technologies, and emerging
technologies such as floating offshore wind, tidal and renewable hydrogen.
Regardless of a technology’s maturity, the aim will be to crowd in
private investment by offering the public funding and government expertise
needed to reduce risks for investors. Great British Energy would be based
in Scotland, and Labour has a vision to ensure that it supports energy
generation assets in all UK regions. It will partner with other
organisations to deliver at least 8GW of community renewables over the
course of the next Parliament.

 Edie 31st May 2024

https://www.edie.net/labour-pledges-to-launch-great-british-energy-within-months-of-general-election-victory/

June 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

US Energy Secretary calls for more nuclear power while celebrating $35 billion Georgia reactors

AP News, BY  JEFF AMY, June 3, 2024

WAYNESBORO, Ga. (AP) — U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Friday called for more nuclear reactors to be built in the United States and worldwide. But the CEO of the Georgia utility that just finished the first two scratch-built American reactors in a generation at a cost of nearly $35 billion says his company isn’t ready to pick up that baton.

Speaking in Waynesboro, Georgia, where Georgia Power Co. and three other utilities last month put a second new nuclear reactor into commercial operation, Granholm said the United States needs 98 more reactors with the capacity of units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle to produce electricity while reducing climate-changing carbon emissions. Each of the two new reactors can power 500,000 homes and businesses without releasing any carbon.

COMMENT. That’s if you don’t count radioactive emissions, and the huge carbon emissions from the entire nuclear fuel chain.

“It is now time for others to follow their lead to reach our goal of getting to net zero by 2050,” Granholm said. “We have to at least triple our current nuclear capacity in this country.”

The federal government says it is easing the risks of nuclear construction, but the $11 billion in cost overruns at Plant Vogtle near Augusta remain sobering for other utilities. Chris Womack is the CEO of Southern Co., the Atlanta-based parent company of Georgia Power. He said he supports Granholm’s call for more nuclear-power generation, but he added that his company won’t build more soon………….

Friday’s event capped a week of celebrations, where leaders proclaimed the reactors a success, even though they finished seven years late…….

The new Vogtle reactors are currently projected to cost Georgia Power and three other owners $31 billion, according to calculations by The Associated Press. Add in $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid Vogtle owners to walk away from construction, and the total nears $35 billion.

Electric customers in Georgia already have paid billions for what may be the most expensive power plant ever. The federal government aided Vogtle by guaranteeing the repayment of $12 billion in loans, reducing borrowing costs…………..

The Biden administration promised that the military would commission reactors, which could help drive down costs for others. It also noted support for smaller reactors, suggesting small reactors could replace coal-fueled electric generating plants that are closing. The administration also pledged to further streamline licensing.

………………………… In Michigan, where Granholm was a Democratic governor, she announced in March up to $1.5 billion in loans to restart the Palisades nuclear power plant, which was shut down in 2022 after a previous owner had trouble producing electricity that was price-competitive.

But with much of the domestic effort focused on building a series of smaller nuclear reactors using mass-produced components, critics question whether they can actually be built more cheaply. Others note that the United States still hasn’t created a permanent repository for nuclear waste, which lasts for thousands of years. Other forms of electrical generation, including solar backed up with battery storage, are much cheaper to build initially.

…………….Regulators in December approved an additional 6% rate increase on Georgia Power’s 2.7 million customers to pay for $7.56 billion in remaining costs at Vogtle, with the company absorbing $2.6 billion in costs. That is expected to cost the typical residential customer an additional $8.97 a month in May, on top of the $5.42 increase that took effect when Unit 3 began operating.  https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-plant-energy-secretary-granholm-05a6e2444a8b5a9e9c7c61b111b87192

June 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »