nuclear-news

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

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

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »