The folly of Ontario’s nuclear power play
MARK WINFIELD, THE GLOBE AND MAIL, 5 Feb 24
Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental and urban change at York University and co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative. He is also co-editor of Sustainable Energy Transitions in Canada (UBC Press, 2023).
The Ontario government’s announcement last week of its intention to pursue the refurbishment of the Pickering B nuclear power plant on the shore of Lake Ontario between Toronto and Pickering represents a strategic triumph for the provincially owned Ontario Power Generation utility. The project would significantly reinforce the utility’s already dominant position in the province’s electricity system.
How well the decision serves the interests of Ontario residents, taxpayers and electricity ratepayers, and advances the sustainable decarbonization of the province’s electricity system, is another question altogether.
A Pickering B refurbishmenthad been assessed as uneconomic in 2010 and the plant scheduled to close in 2018. The facility is located in what is now a densely populated urban area where approval of a new plant would be unlikely.
New plans for that refurbishment are part of larger nuclear expansion strategy being pursued by OPG and the province. The plans include the refurbishment of six reactors at the Bruce Nuclear facility (also owned by OPG) and four reactors at the OPG Darlington facility. There are also proposals for four large new reactors totalling 4,800 MW in capacity at Bruce and four new 300 MW reactors at Darlington.
The total costs of these plans are unknown at this point, but an overall estimate in excess of $100-billion ($13-billion Darlington refurbishment; $25-billion Bruce refurbishment; $15-billion Pickering B refurbishment; $50-billion for Bruce new build; Darlington new build $10-billion or more) would not be unrealistic. Even that figure would assume that things go according to plan, which they rarely do with nuclear construction and refurbishment projects. This could constitute the largest nuclear construction program in the Americas or Europe.
Under the current legislative and policy regime for electricity in Ontario, none of these plans are subject to any external review or regulatory oversight in terms of costs, economic and environmental rationality, or availability of lower-cost and lower-risk pathways for meeting the province’s electricity needs and decarbonizing its electricity system. Rather, the system now runs entirely on the basis of ministerial directives that agencies in the sector – including the putative regulator, the Ontario Energy Board – are mandated to implement.
The government has justified its plans on the expectation of dramatic growth in electricity demand over the next few decades. This would be the result of population and economic growth, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, the electrification of space heating – principally via heat pumps – and expectations of industrial development in areas like the hydrogen economy
There are serious grounds on which to question these projections. Growth in electricity demand in the province has been virtually flat these past two decades despite sustained population and economic growth. The province has no plans of its own for the electrification of transportation or space heating. In fact, it is currently proposing legislation to facilitate the expansion of natural gas service to new housing developments. Many of the anticipated industrial developments, particularly around things like hydrogen, are speculative at best……………………………………..
While nuclear energy may offer a low-carbon energy source, it fails in virtually every other dimension of sustainability: costs; the production of high-volume, toxic and radioactive waste streams that require management on timescales of hundreds, if not thousands, of millennia; and security, catastrophic accident and weapons proliferation risks that simply do not exist in relation to other energy technologies.
These considerations mean that nuclear projects need to be options of last resort in efforts to decarbonize energy systems. This is precisely the opposite of the approach now being taken by Ontario. These are choices that Ontarians and Canadians may come to regret for decades, if not centuries, if they are not subject to some form of serious external review before it is too late to reconsider https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-ontario-pickering-nuclear-power-plant-refurbishment/
Israel Aid Bill Fails in House as Progressives Slam ‘Blank Check for Netanyahu’
“The supplemental funding proposed, which includes no humanitarian aid for Gaza nor assistance for Ukraine, supports weapons of war and destruction that further jeopardize Israeli hostages and Palestinian civilians,
“Each U.S.-made or funded bomb dropped in Gaza further jeopardizes the chances of long-lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians,” said Rep. Delia Ramirez.
JAKE JOHNSON, Feb 07, 2024, https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-aid-house
A Republican effort to push through a standalone military aid package for Israel failed to clear the U.S. House on Tuesday, with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus condemning the proposed $17.6 billion in unconditional assistance for a government that stands accused on the world stage of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip.
The legislation, which President Joe Biden threatened to veto if it reached his desk, needed two-thirds support to pass the House under a suspension of the rules. The final tally was 250 to 180, with 166 Democrats and 14 Republicans voting no.
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said in a statement that “under no circumstances” could she have voted for the legislation, which House Republican leaders sought to advance ahead of the Senate’s planned procedural vote on a broader package that includes military aid to Israel and Ukraine and a border agreement that would dramatically weaken asylum protections.
“The death toll in Gaza continues to rise. Gazans are starving,” Ramirez said late Tuesday. “Over 1.5 million people have been displaced. Hostilities between the U.S. and Iran are escalating. And just this morning, The New York Times reported that one-fifth of the hostages still in captivity since the start of the conflict have likely died. We must change course.”
“The supplemental funding proposed, which includes no humanitarian aid for Gaza nor assistance for Ukraine, supports weapons of war and destruction that further jeopardize Israeli hostages and Palestinian civilians,” she continued. “Each U.S.-made or funded bomb dropped in Gaza further jeopardizes the chances of long-lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it now: I will only support actions that bring us closer to peace.”
In a brief floor speech ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) described standalone Israel aid legislation as a “blank check for [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu” and other far-right officials seeking the permanent removal of Palestinians from Gaza.
If passed, the aid measure would have allowed the U.S. State Department to waive congressional notification requirements for billions of dollars in U.S. military financing for Israel, which has massacred Gaza civilians with American-made weaponry.
“I will vote no because it is painfully obvious to the entire world that what is needed today is a permanent cease-fire and a release of all hostages,” Khannas said. “There come moments in a nation’s history when our actions reveal our values. This is such a moment.”
The failure of the Israel aid bill came shortly after House Republicans also fell short in their effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) wrote in response to the Mayorkas vote that “Republicans are deeply disconnected from the people.”
“They’re not serious about fixing our immigration system, they have no plan to improve folks’ lives, and they keep wasting our time with political stunts like these,” Pressley added. “This sham, failed impeachment is just the latest example.”
Senate Republicans on Wednesday are expected to block consideration of the broader supplemental security package over the border agreement, which they claim isn’t sufficiently harsh—a position right in line with that of former President Donald Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.
Energy Security Minister Graham Stuart opposes Holderness nuclear waste site
By Stuart Harratt, BBC News
A MP said he is supporting efforts to oppose plans to bury nuclear waste in East Yorkshire.
Beverley and Holderness Conservative MP Graham Stuart called on East Riding Council to withdraw from discussions with Nuclear Waste Services (NWS).
The government agency has named South Holderness as a potential site for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).
Mr Graham, who is also the Minister for Energy Security, had previously called for a public vote on the proposals.
He now says he is supporting a motion by two local Conservative councillors, Lyn Healing and Sean McMaster, asking that the local authority stop talks with NWS.
‘Community says no’
“South Holderness is a special place, and the news that the area was being considered as the site for the UK’s GDF shocked many in our community,” Mr Stuart said.
“It is the people of Holderness who should determine what happens in their area and they have made clear their opposition to these plans.”
He added: “Our community says ‘No’ and Lyn and Sean have my backing to seek our withdrawal.”
Ms Healing and Mr McMaster said their motion to withdraw from discussions would be submitted to a full council meeting on 21 February.
“Yes, investment in Holderness is badly required but is this the right investment? We now believe it isn’t,” the councillors said……………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-68233882
Do the Right Thing: Put the South African Government’s Nuclear Plans to a Popular Referendum
BY GERARD BOYCE, COUNTER PUNCH 5 Feb 24
Ever since South African Energy Minister Dr Kgosientsho Ramokgopa announced that Cabinet had approved the updated Integrated Resource Plan last December, local media has been awash with articles by nuclear supporters and sundry lobbyists exhorting politicians and government to ‘show true leadership’ and ‘do the right thing’ when it comes to nuclear power.
Invariably, doing so means showing unwavering support for the government’s plans to expand nuclear energy generation capacity by choosing the particular nuclear technology or reactor design favored by the author of the article being read or following the guidelines they helpfully drew up to assist policymakers by advising how they ought to proceed going about doing so, even if this means going against the recommendations of the presidentially-appointed panel of experts who sit on the Presidential Climate Commission or failing to address the numerous criticisms that have been leveled against government’s nuclear plans, prominent South African nuclear scientists among them. Presumably, depending on the responses these articles elicit, individual politicians would then be lauded for the leadership and courage they have shown or berated for their lack thereof.
It is curious, not to mention ironic, to hear such sentiments expressed by pro-nuclear supporters, especially those who have long attempted to portray the decision to ‘go nuclear’ as a self-evident outcome of a purely technical decision-making process that is obviously best left to ‘the experts’ i.e. appointed and unelected technocrats who are supposedly immune to political interference.
It is also somewhat misleading of them to characterize the decision to support the expansion of nuclear power capacity as one requiring ‘courage’ as such given the scant detail government has provided on its nuclear plans, the few general nuclear education and public awareness campaigns on nuclear power it has run within and outside of the communities in which it is proposed that reactors be located in future and the critical information related to its past nuclear dealings and the planned Koeberg life expansion project amongst others it has allegedly deliberately withheld from the public.
All of these combined result in persistent and extremely low public levels of knowledge of nuclear power and related issues, so much so that the general public appears ambivalent about the issue of nuclear power. This assessment seems to be supported by the persistently low turnout that is observed at the perfunctory public hearings which the government seemingly hosts to satisfy administrative requirements surrounding public participation in order to mitigate any potential for conflict to arise in the future rather than to genuinely engage the public’s views on nuclear power.
Subsequently, the organized anti-nuclear political movement nationally is under-resourced and the level of grassroots public support it enjoys is uncertain. Considering the limited organized opposition thereto and the general public’s nuclear indifference, none but the most biased observer would be reluctant to concede that the decision to champion nuclear power is unlikely to demand much by way of boldness or courage from the individual politician. More so since nuclear power, by its nature, accords so conveniently with the motivations of the average individual politician to amass more power and influence for themselves and members of their class and has the power to undermine the public oversight mechanisms and regulatory frameworks set up to monitor them. Yet perhaps the biggest reason why nuclear power is likely to appeal to representatives of SA’s major political parties especially is because it could enable their parties to navigate the political forces that assail them…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
It is apparent from the scenarios described above that political imperatives dictate the adoption of a pro-nuclear position by politicians from all the major political parties in SA irrespective of the political ideologies they espouse or the content or merits of the specific nuclear plan under review. Under these circumstances, exhorting politicians to support nuclear power is akin to urging them to act to protect their party’s narrow political interests. One submits to the reader that this does not seem to be particularly brave or courageous.
In contrast, it would require a tremendous amount of courage for a politician to acknowledge and act on the insight that the distortions introduced by prevailing political considerations render it impossible for them to hold robust internal political debates on the issue of nuclear power, more so considering the increased frequency with which ostensible party comrades have resorted to using deadly methods to eliminate potential rivals. It is, therefore, naïve to rely on the party political system to formulate positions on nuclear power that are truly in the nation’s best interest.
……………………………………………… they could opt to support the right of every citizen to act with the courage and integrity nuclear supporters claim they want politicians to by calling upon the government to submit its nuclear plans to a popular referendum. In a country where citizens have become fed up by years of maladministration and corruption and large sections of the electorate are beginning to lose faith in the democratic system itself, this display of political courage would serve as definitive proof of the leadership credentials of the politician who wanted to ‘do the right thing’ by their compatriots.
Dr Gerard Boyce is an Economist and Senior Lecturer in the School of Built Environment and Development Studies at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (Howard College) in Durban, South Africa. He writes in his personal capacity. m https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/02/05/do-the-right-thing-put-the-south-african-governments-nuclear-plans-to-a-popular-referendum/
Iran Plans More Nuclear Reactors Despite Serious Hurdles
Sunday, 02/04/2024, Umud Shokri, Iran International
Iran’s recently stated plan to build four more nuclear power reactors has raised questions about its feasibility as the country wrestles with economic crisis and isolation.
According to early estimates, work has started in the southern region with a five-thousand-megawatt total capacity in mind. With 4,000 employment prospects and an estimated $20 billion cost, the planned nine-year schedule raises questions under current economic circumstances.
The difficulties Iran has faced in building new power plants in the last ten years raise doubts about whether the 25,000 megawatts of new electricity that the previous national development plan sought to bring about can be achieved.
The Iranian government pledged to raise the percentage of renewable and clean energy power plants to a minimum of five percent in line with the sixth development plan (2017–2021). However, the share of nuclear power is currently one percent, which means that the program’s goals have been significantly missed………..
The only nuclear power plant in the country is a 1,000 megawatt facility that started up in 2011 with help from Russia. A 300 megawatt plant is reportedly under construction in Khuzestan.
Building times for nuclear power plants vary greatly due to factors like supply chain maturity, design revisions, and project management efficiency, but Iran faces a severe electricity shortage now. Consumption peaked at over 72,000 megawatts in 2023, surpassing the actual production capacity of power plants, capped at 60,000 megawatts during the warm season.
Iran is facing several obstacles in its efforts to build further nuclear power reactors, including financial and technological constraints, geopolitical and political instability, and international sanctions. The interplay of political and economic dynamics, together with worries about public opinion, safety, and international compliance, complicate Iran’s nuclear energy development scenario. Moreover, Mohammad Eslami, the head of Iran’s nuclear energy said last week that Tehran is planning to build the new reactors relying on domestic financing and knowhow……………………………………………………………….
Examining Iran’s foreign policy, one can see that the country is committed to scientific progress even in the face of external challenges, as seen by its tenacity in pursuing its nuclear program despite sanctions. Careful navigation is necessary to resolve the delicate dance between energy demands, geopolitical concerns, and the difficulties presented by international sanctions. Iran’s prospects for the energy sector both at home and abroad will depend on how well it can surmount these challenges https://www.iranintl.com/en/202402034292
The future of nuclear: France’s nuclear dreams or nightmares?
The Macron Government has laid out ambitious plans for its capricious nuclear sector, but such optimism should not blind us to potential challenges.
Alfie Shaw, February 5, 2024, Power Technology
t last year’s COP28 climate conference in Dubai, French President Emmanuel Macron triumphantly declared that “nuclear energy is back”. His celebratory remark was uttered after France led a group of 20 countries in signing a pledge to “triple nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050”.
Since the summit, a range of announcements and promises have been made that appear to support France’s ‘nuclear renaissance’. In November, the European Parliament backed the development of small modular reactors (SMRs), a versatile technology that many consider to be the future of the industry. Two months later, Energy Transition Minister Agnes Pannier- Runacher said that France will need to build 14 new nuclear power plants rather than the six currently planned if the country is to meet its energy transition goals.
Is all this optimism warranted? France has long been a nuclear superpower but lost its position as the world’s second-largest producer of nuclear energy to China in 2022, with the US coming in first. It is worth considering whether Macron’s positivity is justified in the context of several issues that currently beset the country’s industry, including EDF’s unpredictable performance, lack of strong allies in the European Council, slow progress on SMR development and Russian interdependence.
EDF’s annus horribilis
Électricité de France (EDF) is the French multinational electric utility company that runs the country’s 56 reactors. Throughout 2022, many were forced offline for maintenance work, causing output to fall below 1990 levels, despite installed capacity being 5GW lower at this time.
Nuclear shutdowns are in themselves not a huge cause for concern. Older power plants need to be updated with the latest technologies and France was planning on widespread shutdowns for its ‘Grand Carénage’ refurbishment programme anyway. However, the nature of these specific stoppages was worrying.
In December 2021, the discovery of cracks in the emergency core cooling systems of four of the newest French reactors led to them being shut down. The four units, which each produce 1.5GW, did not generate a single kilowatt-hour throughout 2022. Other 1.3GW reactors also showed similar symptoms, and by mid-2022, 12 additional reactors were shut down due to the same problem. In its annual electricity review, Réseau de Transport d’Électricité highlighted the crux of the issue, stating, “these outages, or outage extensions to carry out maintenance, tests and repairs where needed, primarily involved the newest reactors in the fleet (N4 and P4 designs), i.e. reactors that were not targeted for investment in the Grand Carénage refit programme”.
Although EDF’s nuclear output was 14.8% higher in 2023 than 2022 as reactors came back online, Macron will have to square his desire for new reactors with the ongoing threat of unplanned shutdowns at existing newer plants. Mycle Schneider, nuclear analyst and author of the annual World Nuclear Status Reports, commented on the ongoing unpredictability of EDF’s output, stating: “We have repeatedly seen that EDF was off by several gigawatts of nuclear capacity availability in predictions for the following week. If you look at availability on a certain day, and then go back one week, nuclear availability is several gigawatts different to the projection made a week previously.”
Seeking international allies……………………………………………….
SMRs – a false dawn?
The creation of the EU SMR Industrial Alliance in November accentuates the blocs’ commitment to modular technology in its nuclear drive. Naturally, France led the group of 11 countries signing the alliance.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE) defines SMRs as advanced nuclear fission reactors that have a power generation capacity of up to 300MW per unit – around a third of the capacity of traditional reactors. The ‘small’ and ‘modular’ nature of their design means they can be sited at locations unsuited to larger nuclear power plants. Their diminutive size is also meant to save on construction time and cost.
Despite significant optimism around the technology, little progress has been made on the ground. The most advanced SMR project in the western world was forcibly abandoned in November 2023 due to excessive costs. US-based NuScale scrapped the development with a conglomerate of Utah municipalities after the cost estimate of the project increased to $9.3bn, bringing the cost per kilowatt to $20,000 for the plant, around twice the cost of the most expensive European pressurised water reactor.
Subsequently, there are no SMRs in commercial operation in the west. Placing the EU alliance in this context, Schneider said: “We are not talking commercial contracts. It is like this alliance [EU SMR Industrial Alliance], which is kind of nice. Everybody [the 11 signatories] puts a name under it, but it does not mean anything in industrial terms.”
Even in Russia, where SMR output has been achieved (although, not commercially), there have been construction issues. The reactor took more than 12.7 years to build, more than three-times the 3.7-year target. Schneider noted that this “was not really the demonstration of easy, quick feasibility” that SMRs are meant to be. China too has two operational SMRs, but no production or cost figures on the reactors are yet available.
Overcoming Russian interdependency
Russia is still the primary constructor and exporter of nuclear reactors, with the state company Rosatom, as of mid-2023, building 24 out of the 58 constructed around the world. While France has taken part in a host of EU sanctions placed on Russian energy exports designed to curb revenue for the Kremlin’s war on Ukraine, the measures have not included sanctions on the nuclear sector………………………………………………….
While France is looking to build an alliance with EU nations that still have strong links with the Russian nuclear sector, its own institutions are also interlinked. Framatome, an EDF subsidiary, originally planned to set up a joint venture with Rosatom subsidiary TVEL to manufacture VVER fuel elements in its Lingen plant in Germany. However, in spring 2023, it became clear that the German Government would likely oppose the deal, so the Franco-Russian company was set up in France, with TVEL owning 25% of it. Advanced Nuclear Fuels, a Framatome subsidiary that operates the Lingen plant, wants to extend the manufacturing plant with a dedicated VVER-fuel production line. The Lower Saxony Government is opposed to the project, but under the Atomic Law it does not have a veto right. This leaves the decision in the hands of the federal government, which as of January 2024, has not been taken. Schneider noted the irregularity of the Framatome-Rosatom partnership, considering Framatome could have worked with Westinghouse given the US company’s capability to manufacture VVER fuel. He added that although the reason for this decision is unclear and there is limited evidence to illustrate strong reasoning, “it is quite likely to do with technical difficulties” with the Westinghouse fuel.
As France looks to expand its nuclear industry, there will be challenges, both within its domestic industry and its international relations, that the country will have to address. France’s nuclear watchdog recently said there was “lack of rigour and performance” in EDFs supply chain monitoring and this will have to improve if output is to become stable. While Italy has signalled its desire to re-establish nuclear power, if plans remain unrealised, it is unlikely to be a reliable nuclear ally within the EU council – something which France desperately needs if it is to push through nuclear friendly legislation. SMRs could become a key source of nuclear energy if on-the-ground development begins in earnest, but so far progress has been limited to hopeful pledges. As long as it remains largely dependent on the tenuous, unpredictable Russian regime for its nuclear fuel generation, France’s nuclear plans will have an insecure foundation. If France is to materialise its abstract nuclear dreams into everyday energy production, it will need to address each of these issues pragmatically. https://www.power-technology.com/news/france-has-laid-out-ambitious-nuclear-plans-but-challenges-remain/?cf-view&cf-closed
Half of Americans think Israel going ‘too far’ in Gaza.
https://www.rt.com/news/591733-israel-gaza-too-far-poll/ 5 Feb 24
Democrats were almost twice as likely as Republicans to find Israel’s bombardment of the Palestinian enclave excessive
Half of Americans think Israel’s military response to the October 7 Hamas raid has “gone too far,” according to an AP-NORC poll published on Friday. The figure represents a ten-point increase since the pollster asked the same question in November.
Less than a third (31%) of the 1,152 poll respondents said West Jerusalem’s military actions had “been about right,” while 15% said it had not gone far enough. Both figures represent a significant decrease from November, when 38% of those polled approved of the response, and 18% said it should go further.
Democrats were almost twice as likely as Republicans to say Israel had gone too far in its bombardment of Gaza – 62%, compared to 33%.
However, more Democrats also said the campaign had not gone far enough compared to November’s polling (9% vs 7%). Over a third (37%) of respondents said the US was too supportive of Israel. However, the majority (61%) of those who answered the survey said Hamas held “a lot” of responsibility for the war compared to just 35% who said the same about the Israeli government. A third also thought the Iranian government was significantly responsible, but just one in ten thought Washington had played a major role.
Two-thirds (67%) disapproved of President Joe Biden’s handling of the conflict, with a growing portion of Democrats speaking out against their leader (53% compared to just 39% in December).
Despite Washington’s unqualified support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza, only a little over a third (35%) of those surveyed described the nation as “an ally that shares US interests and values.” A plurality (44%) instead viewed it as “a partner that the US should cooperate with, but doesn’t share its interests and values,” while another 9% called it “a rival that the US should compete with, but that it’s not in conflict with.” Just 7% described Israel as an adversary.
Israel has killed over 27,000 Palestinians in Gaza since the war began nearly four months ago, according to the enclave’s Health Ministry, leading South Africa to accuse it of genocide in a case filed with the International Court of Justice in December. The court has since ordered West Jerusalem to prevent genocide in the territory and preserve evidence of any crimes classifiable as such.
Israel was also ordered to alleviate the humanitarian situation for Palestinians, most of whom are considered in danger of starvation or malnutrition. Over 85% of Gaza residents have been displaced by Israeli bombardment since October.
Instead of allowing more aid into the besieged territory, Israel accused the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency, UNRWA, of aiding and abetting Hamas. This led the US and over a dozen other countries to pull funding from the already-overstretched organization.
an si
Zelensky wants to fire his top general over peace talks – Seymour Hersh
https://www.rt.com/russia/591705-zelensky-zaluzhny-peace-talks/ 4 Feb 24
A secret plan has been hatched in Washington to bring about the Ukrainian leader’s downfall, the veteran journalist claims
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky wants to fire his top general, Valery Zaluzhny, over secret talks he has held with the West to end the conflict with Russia, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has reported, citing his sources. He also suggested that some US officials want to help Zaluzhny in a “power struggle” with Zelensky.
Numerous reports have claimed that the president fell out with the general last autumn after Zaluzhny declared in an interview that Ukraine’s much-hyped counteroffensive against Russia had ground to a “stalemate” on the battlefield. The two are also believed to have had several other disagreements regarding military issues.
While Ukrainian officials have denied reports of Zaluzhny’s imminent dismissal, following a spate of reports in Western media, CNN reported on Wednesday that it could happen as early as this week.
In an article published on Hersh’s Substack on Friday, he offered a different version of why Zelensky was seeking to boot his top general.
The Ukrainian president’s desire to fire the commander, according to Hersh, stems from “his knowledge that Zaluzhny had continued to participate… in secret talks since last fall with American and other Western officials on how best to achieve a ceasefire and negotiate an end to the war with Russia.”
At the same time, according to the article, some members of the US military and intelligence community support Zaluzhny’s peacemaking overture and want reforms in the Ukrainian government.
Hersh noted that the concept outlined by a number of US officials insists that Ukraine must embark on financial reforms, root out corruption, and improve the economy and infrastructure. However, the journalist continued, citing one official, the real plan is “far more ambitious” as it “envisions sustained support for Zaluzhny and reforms that would lead to the end of the Zelensky regime.”
According to Hersh, for this reason, the talk of firing Zelensky left some proponents of the plan “dismayed.” One official, the journalist said, described the tensions between Zelensky and Zaluzhny as “an old-fashioned power struggle.” However, they continued that “we couldn’t have gotten airborne without a willing and courageous pilot,” referring to the general.
Hersh noted that this plan was developed without the involvement of the White House, which has publicly stated it will support Ukraine “as long as it takes.” However, an unnamed US official told the reporter that Russian President Vladimir Putin is also “looking for a way out” of the conflict.
Moscow has repeatedly said that it is ready for talks with Ukraine, provided it recognizes territorial reality on the ground. Putin also stated last year that for any engagement to occur, Zelensky should cancel his decree prohibiting negotiations with the current Russian leadership.
Czech Republic / Government Seeks Binding Tenders For Four Nuclear Reactors From EDF And KHNP
By Kamen Kraev, 1 February 2024
Prague hopes to cut down new-build costs via a ‘package’ deal
The Czech government announced on Wednesday (31 January) that it will be seeking binding bids from two technology vendors, France’s EDF and South Korea’s KHNP, for the construction of up to four new reactor units at the existing Dukovany nuclear power station……. (Subscribers only) m https://www.nucnet.org/news/government-seeks-binding-tenders-for-four-nuclear-reactors-from-edf-and-khnp-2-4-2024
U.S. Congress about to weaken its oversight of weapons sales to foreign countries.
this bill would mark a major reduction in Congress’s ability to stop dangerous or ill founded weapons transfers to foreign military forces.
It would mandate that the United States build up an even larger (taxpayer funded) military industry in order to meet the world’s weapons needs in a timely manner! It would help the arms industry divert more taxpayer funds into its coffers.
Congress poised to cede more foreign weapons oversight. Why?
New bill would speed up the delivery of deadly arms while scaling back the ability of elected representatives to monitor the implications
LORA LUMPEWILLIAM HARTUNG, FEB 02, 2024, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/congress-weapons-sales/
At a time of record U.S. weapons sales and many wars, the House Foreign Affairs Committee has decided that Congress should provide less, rather than more oversight of the booming business.
Next week, the committee is marking up the Foreign Military Sales Technical, Industrial and Governmental Engagement for Readiness Act. But don’t be fooled by the mundane title — this bill would mark a major reduction in Congress’s ability to stop dangerous or ill founded weapons transfers to foreign military forces. In short, this proposed legislation would speed up the delivery of deadly weapons while scaling back the ability of our elected representatives to assess the security implications of such transfers.
Because arms shipments are such an important part of warmaking and therefore U.S. foreign policy, current law requires the executive branch to notify Congress of proposed weapons deals over a certain dollar threshold. Congress then has 15 or 30 days — depending on whether the country is a treaty ally or not — to review the transaction before the administration can proceed.
During that review period Congress can pass a joint resolution to block the sale. Doing so is extraordinarily difficult in such a short time, and has in fact never been done. The closest Congress came was in 2019 when both the Senate and the House passed a resolution prohibiting the transfer of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, over concerns that they would use the bombs to further devastate Yemen.
President Trump vetoed the effort, and Congress could not override his veto, showing that the legislative branch needs more, rather than less ability to challenge weapons supply to foreign armies.
But if Congress is not even notified about a sale the administration is planning, there is absolutely no chance it can block the transfer. This arms industry-backed bill the House is marking up raises the dollar threshold for notice to Congress substantially – by 66%! – and would dramatically reduce the number of potential sales Congress is told about each year.
Even without the proposed threshold increase, we know that the volume of deals that fall below Congress’s radar can be significant.
The State Department Inspector General documented that over a four-year period at the height of their brutal intervention in Yemen the administration provided more than $11 billion dollars in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE that fell below the congressional notification threshold. This included equipment that Congress had placed holds on due to concerns over the devastating impact on civilians. Congress was not aware of these transfers at the time they occurred.
So you might ask: What problem is Congress seeking to address with this bill? Why should Congress decide to receive less rather than more information about proposed deadly weapons transfers? Proponents suggest that raising the threshold simply keeps up with inflation and allows U.S. companies to remain competitive.
But U.S. weapons companies already dominate the global arms trade, so the idea that maintaining current levels of minimal congressional vetting will hurt their competitiveness doesn’t pass muster.
Others say that this notification process slows sales down. But the State Department is already approving 95% of government-negotiated Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases within 48 hours and has seen record increases in both FMS and industry-direct arms sales over the last several years.
In addition to exempting more sales from its own oversight, with this bill Congress would require the secretary of state to take weapons from U.S. government stocks for delivery to foreign forces in cases where the production and delivery of the weapons is taking more than three years. It would achieve this through the use of “Drawdown Authority,” an emergency mechanism used at a very large scale to move weapons from U.S. stockpiles to Ukraine over the past two years.
Specifically, it would require the administration to take weapons from U.S. stockpiles if arms are not delivered within three years of when Congress is notified of a potential sale. This provision would establish an arbitrary time commitment that fails to reflect the many concerns that may arise in the intervening period — such as a change in government, the outbreak of war, or serious human rights violations or widespread civilian harm by the recipient government forces.
It would also prioritize foreign armies over that of the United States. What problem is this addressing? Answer: It would mandate that the United States build up an even larger (taxpayer funded) military industry in order to meet the world’s weapons needs in a timely manner! It would help the arms industry divert more taxpayer funds into its coffers.
In sum, if Congress were to pass this bill, it would have less knowledge of which weapons are being transferred to which countries, and less ability to ensure that transfers are consistent with U.S. law, policy, and interests. Trashing this bill should be Congress’s first step towards taking back more power to review and block foreign weapons deals, not less.
Hinkley C – don’t say I didn’t warn you!
In 2016, I called for Hinkley C to be scrapped. Now its commissioning has been pushed back to the end of the decade and its costs have ballooned to as much as £48 billion in 2024 money. I was right.
MICHAEL LIEBREICH, JAN 25, 2024
“The case for Hinkley Point C has collapsed: It’s time to scrap it.” This was the title of an article I wrote for City AM in July 2016.
The story so far
For those who have forgotten those heady days, a quick recap. July 2016 was one month after the UK voted for Brexit. Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne (whose pet project was Hinkley C, aided by energy minister in the previous Coalition government and currently LibDem leader, Ed Davey) had resigned. Theresa May had just taken over as Prime Minister.
The project already had a ghastly history. In the early 2000s, the nuclear industry, with French champion Areva in the lead (later driven into bankruptcy by cost overruns at Flamanville and Olkiluoto and rescued by EDF in 2017), announced a “Nuclear Renaissance” and was lobbying for a new build programme in the UK to replace aging plants set for retirement. In the absence of evidence, they claimed new plants would produce power for £24 per MWh (£39/MWh in 2024 money, or $50/MWh).
The Labour Party, long dead set against nuclear power, were convinced. In January 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared, in the preface to a White Paper on nuclear power entitled “Meeting the Energy Challenge” that “nuclear should have a role to play in the generation of electricity, alongside other low carbon technologies.” The White Paper estimated the total cost of building a 1.6GW nuclear plant at £2.8 billion – which would translate into £5.6 billion for Hinkley C’s 3.2GW (£9.0 billion or $11.5 billion in 2024 money).
EDF’s UK CEO Vincent de Rivaz was cock-a-hoop, predicting that Brits would be cooking their turkeys with power from Hinkley C by Christmas 2017. But remember that figure – £9.0 billion for 3.2GW.
By October 2013, Osborne and Davey had agreed a Contract for Difference with EDF for electricity production at a strike price of £92.50/MWh in 2012 money (£132/MWh in today’s money or $169/MWh) – rising with inflation for 35 years, but dropping to £87.50 (£125/MWh in today’s money or $173/MWh) if a second EPR were to be built. That EPR is Sizewell C – of which more later.
At that point, Hinkley C was expected to cost £16 billion in 2015 money (£22 billion in 2024 money or $28 billion). It was due to come online in 2023 and continue cooking Christmas turkeys for 60 years.
Since then, on five separate occasions EDF has announced that costs have increased, and the commissioning date pushed back. The only delay which was not fully in the control of EDF and it suppliers in the nuclear and construction industries was Covid – which can be blamed for around a year of delay and a couple of billion of cost increase, but not more.
Last week – yet another delay and cost increase
……………………. Now, I know that supporters of the project and hard-core nuclear fans will be bursting blood vessels at this point, desperate to jump in an explain that most of the difference between £9 billion and nearly £50 billion is down to financing cost resulting from the use of the CfD mechanism, regulatory cost, delay in government decision-making and so on. But I’m going to say it: I don’t care……………………………
How big things (don’t) get done
It is not like cost over-runs in nuclear projects are a big secret. The world’s leading academic expert on project management is Danish Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, author of How Big Things Get Done, who joined me on Cleaning Up last year. Having build a huge database of projects of different sources, he can definitively show that nuclear plants are worse only than Olympic Games in terms of cost over-runs. On average they go 120% over the budget, with 58% of them going a whopping 204% over budget.
The common trope among nuclear fans is that it is only in the western world that nuclear new build is either problematic or exorbitantly expensive, and this is driven by excessive regulation.
While excessive delays in emerging nuclear powers are certainly less common, there is no transparency over how this is achieved. There are ample examples of problems: the use of fake certification documents, the sealing of deals for reactor sales by military inducements, cutting corners on safety, failure to maintain control of the fuel supply chain, failure to disclose problems and accidents; unexplained accidents on aging plants.
There is also no transparency over the real cost of their plants. Put simply, these are are whatever their leaders say they are: it is they who decide the cost of capital, state guarantees, whether safety standards meet or exceed international standards, whether safety standards are enforced, the environmental standards applied to the supply chain, the speed projects proceed through licencing, the need or not to provision for decommissioning costs, the diversion of costs to military, energy or industrial budgets, and so on.
Back to 2016
Now let’s get back to Hinkley C, and 2016. One of the first things Theresa May did when she took over from David Cameron was to ask her security advisors to review the wisdom of allowing state-owned China General Nuclear to invest £6 billion in the project. In the end May backed down and allowed the investment to go ahead, but that is the background to my piece: the project’s future was in doubt, and it was the last realistic chance to kill it before tens of billions of pounds had been invested. And this is what I wrote: The case for Hinkley Point C has collapsed: It’s time to scrap it.
………………………………………………………………. It is worth remembering that while construction costs are in the £42 to £48 billion range, the 35 years of electricity at £87.50 or £92.50/MW in 2012 money, adjusted for inflation will cost UK energy users a gargantuan £111 or £116 billion over the next 35 years. Could we use that money better? You bet.
Summary
So there you have it. 2016 was a missed opportunity, most likely the last opportunity to scrap the benighted project, one of the worst blunders in the history of public procurement and of the UK’s energy industry.
Does that mean we should scrap it now? It’s almost certainly too late. EDF has probably spent so much on the project, that the net present value of its revenues exceeds the remaining cost to bring the project to completion
What I do know is that the UK must resist the French government demands that it put its hand in the public pocket for yet more money to support the project. The whole point of the structure put in place, with its super-generous and inflation-protected CfD strike price, was that EDF was to bear the risk of cost over-runs. These will come back to bite UK energy users in the form of higher power costs from Sizewell C, should that project go ahead. If the UK taxpayers have to bear the cost of cost over-runs, let’s just nationalise and be done with any pretence that the market bears any risk from nuclear power projects.
I know many will say I am just being anti-nuclear.
No, I’m pro-nuclear……..
………………… to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “if Hinkley C, Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Vogtle are the way the nuclear industry treats its projects, it does not deserve to have any”. https://mliebreich.substack.com/p/hinkley-c-dont-say-i-didnt-warn-you
Holtec to get $1.5 bln loan to re-open Michigan nuclear power plant -source
By Timothy Gardner, February 1, 2024
Jan 30 (Reuters) – Holtec International is set to get a $1.5 billion conditional loan in February from the U.S. Energy Department to help it restart the Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan, a person with knowledge of the matter said on Tuesday.
The loan from the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office (LPO) is likely to be announced in late February, the person said, declining to be identified as the information was not yet public.
The energy technology firm said it was “optimistic” about the federal loan process, which would help the company re-open a closed U.S. nuclear power plant for the first time in history.
“We hope for a timely approval to bring the plant back to full power operation toward the end of 2025,” said Holtec spokesperson Nick Culp, declining to comment on the size or timing of the loan.
Florida-based Holtec bought Palisades in 2022 from Entergy (ETR.N), opens new tab to decommission the plant after it struggled to compete with natural gas-fired plants and renewable energy……………………………………
Bloomberg first, opens new tab reported that the administration was poised to loan the company $1.5 billion as soon as next month, citing sources………………….
The Biden administration earlier this month finalized $1.1 billion in credits to keep PG&E Corp’s (PCG.N), opens new tab Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in operation in California…………….more https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/holtec-get-15-bln-loan-re-open-michigan-nuclear-power-plant-source-2024-01-31/
How not to go nuclear: Hinkley and Sizewell
by DAVID HOWELL
David Howell: This is not just a matter of finding the cash to meet the
enormous budget overrun. The Chinese payments halt at Hinkley leaves a
growing gap. Love or hate them nowadays, they have already been edged out
of the Sizewell plan (they were actually paid £100m to leave), so the very
large Chinese contribution there will also have to be found from elsewhere.
But EDF has no more money, and the French think the British Government
should open its chequebook. HM Treasury thinks no such thing. So, to
repeat, who is going to fill the gap?
Copying Hinkley, and certainly copying its financial story, looks less attractive by the day. The British hope is that at Sizewell a new financial model, requiring consumers and
customers to pay extra for years in advance for their electricity, will
entice in investors, to replace the Chinese. One allegedly interested
“private investor” is said to be the not-so-private United Arab
Emirates government. But is that the kind of swap — the very non-aligned
UAE in place of the Chinese — that we need?
The Article 29th Jan 2024
https://www.thearticle.com/how-not-to-go-nuclear-hinckley-and-sizewell
Hinkley Point shambles shows why UK must scrap disastrous nuclear strategy.
Energy spokesperson Mark Ruskell is accusing Tories and Labour of wasting billions of pounds on nuclear technology
The UK government must scrap its disastrous nuclear strategy in light of the shambolic saga of the Hinkley Point power station, says the Scottish Greens climate spokesperson, Mark Ruskell MSP.
The call follows revelations that the Hinkley Point project has been hit by yet another delay of up to four more years, and that it could cost an eye watering £46 billion.
This month the UK government announced plans for the biggest expansion on nuclear energy for 70 years.
Mr Ruskell said: “Hinkley Point C has been a shambolic money pit. It’s been hit by delay after delay and the costs are escalating at an alarming rate. Nobody can say with any confidence when it will go live or how much money will have been wasted on it.
“Yet, the UK government wants to throw even more time and money into an unsafe, unreliable and eye-wateringly expensive energy source that will leave a terrible legacy for future generations.
“The climate crisis is happening all around us. We don’t have time to waste on a disastrous nuclear strategy. Renewable energy is the cleanest, greenest and cheapest energy available, that is what all governments should be focusing on.
“That is what we are doing with Scottish Greens in government in Scotland. Yet the Tories and Labour are committed to wasting billions of pounds on nuclear technology.”
Democrats press Blinken on arms sales to Israel without congressional approval
The Hill BY NICK ROBERTSON – 01/29/24
A bicameral coalition of nearly 20 Democrats urged the State Department on Monday to provide information on the Biden administration’s decisions to sell arms to Israel amid its ongoing war with Hamas without explicit congressional approval.
The letter, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), increases pressure on the Biden White House from Democrats concerned with the U.S. role in the Gaza conflict, which has raged since Hamas’s attack in early October.
The Biden administration has bypassed congressional notification on Israel arms sales twice, raising concerns among the lawmakers.
The members of Congress “shared the world’s horror” over the violence of Hamas militants but are also “deeply disturbed” over Israel’s “indiscriminate bombing” of Palestinians in Gaza, the letter says.
“It is essential for Congress to be able to conduct oversight of these arms transfers and determine whether they are consistent with humanitarian principles and U.S. law, and whether they advance or harm U.S. national security,” the letter reads.
“It is highly unusual for the president to bypass congressional oversight through an emergency declaration,” it continues. “In fact, since the [Arms Export Control Act] was passed into law, an emergency declaration authority has only been used 18 times in nearly 50 years.”
The lawmakers drew attention to the mass civilian casualties in the conflict, and the use of U.S. munitions in strikes that killed civilians. More than 25,000 Palestinians have been killed in the conflict, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
“We are also troubled by the decision to provide equipment for 155mm shells, which over 30 U.S.-based civil society organizations warned poses ‘a grave risk to civilians’ and are ‘inherently indiscriminate’ when used in densely populated areas like Gaza,” the letter reads.
Specifically, the letter demands Secretary of State Antony Blinken provide official explanations for why the administration chose to pursue emergency transfers of arms instead of the standard procedure of congressional notification.
“Congress and the American public deserve thorough answers on how this policy was applied for these two emergency transfers,” the lawmakers continued. “Use of a national emergency waiver does not exempt the U.S. government from assessing whether arms sales are consistent with these policies.”
Warren and McGovern were joined on the letter by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Maxine Waters (D-Fla.), and 11 other lawmakers……………..https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4435699-democrats-blinken-arms-sales-to-israel-congressional-approval/
-
Archives
- May 2026 (62)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 