Rosatom (builder of Chernobyl reactor) aiming to sell nukes to Britain
Russians target Britain in nuclear power deal:This is Money, 16 June 13, Builder of reactor at Chernobyl has gained a toehold in UK market Britain has signed a deal with Moscow that could pave the way for Russia’s state-owned nuclear power company Rosatom to build plants in Britain.
Energy Secretary Ed Davey has made an agreement with the deputy primeminister of Russia, Arkady Dvorkovich, to set up a joint working group between Rosatom and the UK on the future of nuclear power.
Rosatom has claimed that the deal could lead to the fulfilment of its longstanding ambition to build nuclear plants in this country.
The agreement, signed last week, comes while Britain is locked in fraught negotiations with French electricity group EDF over the terms to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
MPs have already warned that the Government is being held to ransom by EDF because it is the only group bidding for the contract.
Sergey Ruchkin, Rosatom’s new representative in the UK, said Rosatom was following the EDF deal closely. ‘We will learn lessons from EDF in this area,’ he said.
‘On the working level, we have been in contact with our colleagues from the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change and there is the potential at some time in the future, if the decision has been made,
to enter the British nuclear new-build market.’
Rosatom is essentially the same group that build the reactors at Chernobyl, one of which exploded in 1986. That blast was the worst nuclear power plant disaster in history. It released 400 times more radioactive material into the atmosphere thanthe atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima during the Second World War….
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2342208/Russians-target-Britain-nuclear-power-deal-Builder-reactor-Chernobyl-gained-toehold-UK-market.html#ixzz2WVxeNBXC
Western powers want to sell nukes to India, never mind about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)……
Western powers have taken a keen interest in the nuclear emergence of India …… making it an attractive
prospect for technology exporters.
If India joined the NSG, it would be the only member of the suppliers group that has not signed up to the 1970 nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT)
BRITAIN LOBBIES FOR NUCLEAR EXPORT GROUP TO ADMIT INDIA Yahoo 7 News, Reuters June 15, 2013 By Fredrik Dahl VIENNA – Britain has stepped up efforts to let India join an influential global body controlling nuclear exports, a move that would boost New Delhi’s standing as an atomic power but which has faced resistance from China and other countries. Continue reading
Negotiations going on between the two Koreas
Koreas meet in border village after tensions marked by nuclear threats Sam Kim,CTV News The Associated Press , June 9, 2013 SEOUL, South Korea — Government delegates from North and South Korea began preparatory talks Sunday at a “truce village” on their heavily armed border aimed at setting ground rules for a higher-level discussion on easing animosity and restoring stalled rapprochement projects.
The meeting at Panmunjom, where the truce ending the 1950-53 Korean War was signed, is the first of its kind on the Korean Peninsula in more than two years. Success will be judged on whether the delegates can pave the way for a summit between the ministers of each country’s department for cross-border affairs, which South Korea has proposed for Wednesday in Seoul. Such ministerial talks haven’t happened since 2007.
The intense media interest in what’s essentially a meeting of bureaucrats to iron out technical details is an indication of how bad ties between the Koreas have been……. If the Koreas can arrive at an agreement for ministerial talks, that meeting will likely focus on reopening the factory park in the North Korean border town of Kaesong that was the last remaining symbol of inter-Korean co-operation, and on other scrapped rapprochement projects and reunions of families separated by the Korean War…..
The talks between the Koreas on Sunday could represent a change in North Korea’s approach, analysts said, or could simply be an effort to ease international demands that it end its development of nuclear weapons, a topic crucial to Washington but initially not a part of the envisioned inter-Korean meetings.
Pyongyang, which is estimated to have a handful of crude nuclear devices, has committed a drumbeat of acts that Washington, Seoul and others deem provocative since Kim Jong Un took over in December 2011 after the death of his father, Kim Jong Il. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/koreas-meet-in-border-village-after-tensions-marked-by-nuclear-threats-1.1316934#ixzz2Vqp2UIeV
USA – South Korea nuclear deal and the dangers of an Asian nuclear arms race
Obama’s Nuclear Vietnam National Review Online By Henry Sokolski June 4, 2013 “………..South Korea. The Obama administration has asked Congress to act in the next few weeks on a two-year extension of the existing U.S. nuclear-cooperative agreement with Seoul. The existing deal was supposed to be renegotiated so it could be extended for another 30-year period. Seoul, however, wanted Washington to allow it to make nuclear fuel from U.S. nuclear materials. This caused U.S. negotiators to balk. Publicly, U.S. officials worried that giving South Korea the go-ahead to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium would sink any prospect of getting North Korea to back off from doing so.
An additional concern, though, was more immediate and credible: Saying yes might lock down Japanese plans to finally open a large, uneconomical fuel-making plant capable of producing 1,000 to 2,000 nuclear bombs’ worth of “civilian” plutonium a year. If Japan should decide to open this plant, located in Rokkasho, it might easily give Beijing yet another reason to turn its own military preparations up an additional notch. It was for these reasons that U.S. negotiators asked South Korea to agree to a short, two-year extension to allow further negotiations to sort these matters out.
Reflecting these worries, congressional staffers from both parties added modest language to the administration’s draft U.S.–South Korea two-year nuclear-agreement-extension bill. The staffers’ amended language clarified the desirability of keeping nuclear-fuel-making at bay on the Korean peninsula and in Asia more generally. Administration officials, however, have privately made it clear that they want this language taken out.
This raises even more questions. Is the administration going to hold the line on Korean fuel-making? If so, how can it do this without doing the same with Vietnam? Or is the plan to cave in both cases? If so, how do we intend to deal with the nuclear-fuel-making aspirations of Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey?
One diplomatic answer is that we will handle these matters country by country (i.e., case by case). If Congress settles for this, though, it will have forgotten what it was trying to make the White House understand when it first complained about Secretary Clinton’s cutting a loose nuclear deal with Vietnam: That a “case by case” policy is no policy at all.http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350043/obamas-nuclear-vietnam-henry-sokolski
Iran is not an irrational actor: rational reasons for it to go nuclear
Think Again: A Nuclear Iran Why it won’t be the end of the world if the mullahs get the bomb. Foreign Policy BY ALIREZA NADER | MAY 28, 2013“Iran is an irrational actor” Wrong. It’s as clear as day that the Islamic Republic pursues goals in the Middle East that put it on a collision course with the United States. Iran is opposed to Israel as a Jewish state, for instance, and competes for regional influence with the conservative Gulf Arab monarchies. But that doesn’t mean it is irrational: On the contrary, its top leadership, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is deliberative and calculating. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s antics and often wild rhetoric shouldn’t obscure the fact that the Islamic Republic is interested in its own survival above all else. When contemplating the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, we should all be grateful that notions of martyrdom and apocalyptic beliefs don’t have a significant pull on Iranian decision-making.
Iran’s possible pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is motivated by deterrence, not some messianic effort to bring about the end times Continue reading
Exploitation in Malawi: Paladin’s Kayelekera Uranium Project
THE CASE OF PALADIN’S KAYELEKERA URANIUM MINE: REPORT RELEASED ON THE REVENUE COSTS AND BENEFITS TO MALAWI, Mining in Malawi, 23 May 13 The Australian mining company Paladin Energy and its subsidiaries along with the Malawi-based Kayelekera Uranium Project, in which it has an 85% stake, were the subject of much discussion this evening in Lilongwe at the launch of the report The Revenue Costs and Benefits of Foreign Direct Investment in the Extractive Industry in Malawi: The Case of Kayelekera Uranium Mine. The report explores what it describes as Malawi’s largest Foreign Direct Investment* and the extent to which Malawi is benefiting. It concludes that ”Malawi is getting a raw deal from the mining and exploitation of uranium by Kayelekera Mine”…….
At the launch of the report, Dalitso Kubalasa and Collins Magalasi, the executive directors of MEJN and AFRODAD respectively, spoke briefly before AFRODAD’s Tafadzwa Chikumbu presented the research findings. This paved the way for a lively question and answer session with questions raised about whether or not parliament is ready to renegotiate the terms of the agreement with Paladin, what has happened to the man who lost his sight due to “kayelekera radiation” and if mining revenue in Malawi therefore “dirty money”.
This discussion was followed by the official launch of the report by the Second Deputy Speaker of Parliament Juliana Mphande who exclaimed that she was “appalled to note that incentives offered to Paladin have severe implication to Government revenue and require attention of parliament”. She outlined the areas requiring parliamentary investigation and debate…..
Below is a summary of the main findings: Continue reading
Nuclear armed Iran would not be a threat of aggression
Nuclear Iran Unlikely to Tilt Regional Power Balance – Report By Jim Lobe and Joe HitchonReprint WASHINGTON, May 18 2013 (IPS) – A nuclear-armed Iran would not pose a fundamental threat to the United States and its regional allies like Israel and the Gulf Arab monarchies, according to a new report released here Friday by the Rand Corporation.
Entitled “Iran After the Bomb: How Would a Nuclear-Armed Tehran Behave?“, the report asserts that the acquisition by Tehran of nuclear weapons would above all be intended to deter an attack by hostile powers, presumably including Israel and the United States, rather than for aggressive purposes……..
The report reaches several conclusions all of which generally portray Iran as a rational actor in its international relations.
While Nader calls it a “revisionist state” that tries to undermine what it sees as a U.S.-dominated order in the Middle East, his report stresses that “it does not have territorial ambitions and does not seek to invade, conquer, or occupy other nations.”
Further, the report identifies the Islamic Republic’s military doctrine as defensive in nature. This posture is presumably a result of the volatile and unstable region in which it exists and is exacerbated by its status as a Shi’a and Persian-majority nation in a Sunni and Arab-majority region……. the report concludes that Tehran is unlikely to extend its nuclear deterrent to its allies, including Hezbollah, noting that the interests of those groups do not always – or even often – co-incide with Iran’s. Iran would also be highly unlikely to transfer nuclear weapons to them in any event, according to the report.
*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com. http://www.ip
Iran finds the Wests nuclear proposals lacking in balance
Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator: we’re being asked to make all the sacrifices Saeed Jalili, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator and a contender in the June presidential election, sat down with the Monitor to share his views about an ‘unbalanced’ nuclear offer made by world powers. Christina SCience Monitor, By Scott Peterson, Staff writer / May 16, 2013 ISTANBUL
Saeed Jalili, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator and a presidential candidate, says that offers from six world powers demand far more short-term sacrifices of his government than the Islamic Republic considers reasonable or reciprocal. The current offer from the so-called P5+1 group (theUS, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany) requires Iran to suspend all 20 percent uranium enrichment, disable an impregnable underground enrichment facility at Fordow, and agree to more intrusive inspections, before modest relief from sanctions that have crippled its economy.
“Their proposals are unbalanced,” Mr. Jalili told The Christian Science Monitor in an Istanbul interview today, a day after his inconclusive meeting withCatherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief who leads negotiations for the P5+1. “The other party needs to appreciate that they need to table proposals that have the necessary balance,” says Jalili. “If they accept to do so, then we can engage in talks that will hopefully bring about that required balance.”…… http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0516/Iran-s-chief-nuclear-negotiator-we-re-being-asked-to-make-all-the-sacrifices
USA’s dependence on foreign uranium
Not Just Oil: The US is also Dependent on Foreign Uranium Oil Price.com, By MINING.com | , 14 May 2013 What most Americans don’t realize is that dependence on foreign oil isn’t the main obstacle to US energy autonomy. If you think America’s energy supply issues begin and end with the Middle East, think again. One of the most critical sources of foreign energy is due to dry up this year, and the results could mean spiking electricity prices across the country.
In 2011, the US used 4,128 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity. Nuclear power provided 790.2 billion kWh, or 19% of the total electrical output in the US. Few people know that one in five US households is powered by nuclear energy, and that the price of that nuclear power has been artificially stabilized. Unfortunately for us, the vast majority of the fuel used for powering our homes must be imported……
If this information is news to you, you are not alone. While the mainstream media focus on the US’s “Middle Eastern energy dependence,” the real story remains unnoticed. That’s why Casey Research invited the field’s top experts – including former US Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and Chairman Emeritus of the UK Atomic Energy Authority Lady Barbara Judge – for a frank discussion of what we think is America’s greatest energy challenge.
By. Casey Research via Mining.com http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Not-Just-Oil-The-US-is-also-Dependent-on-Foreign-Uranium.html
Japan refuses to sign international statement against use of nuclear weapons
Preventing use of nuclear weapons, Japan Times Editorial 10 May 13 Japan recently refused to support an international joint statement which stressed that “It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances.”
The Japanese government’s failure to sign the statement is regrettable in view of the simple fact that Japan became the first nation in history to suffer from the use of nuclear weapons through the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. In addition, a nuclear catastrophe happened at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, causing great hardship to residents of Fukushima Prefecture.
Some 150,000 people from the prefecture are still forced to live away from their homes because the homes are located in areas contaminated by radioactive substances from the plant.
The Japanese are among the few on Earth who have experienced the dread of exposure to radiation whether it is from a nuclear weapon or from a nuclear power plant accident. Many Japanese citizens will not accept the government’s decision not to sign the statement, which was supported on April 24 by 74 countries at the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in Geneva.
The joint statement said in part, “It is a shared responsibility of all States to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.” It also said, “The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination.” It would not be far-fetched to say that by not supporting it, Japan has negated its own hard experience it could use to accelerate moves toward the elimination of nuclear weapons…… http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/05/11/editorials/preventing-use-of-nuclear-weapons/#.UY68JqJwpLs
Egypt’s anger at lack of progress on nuclear free Middle East
Egypt Walks Out Of Nuclear Talks In Geneva, Huffington Post, By JOHN HEILPRIN 04/29/13 GENEVA — Egypt walked out of a round of global
nuclear talks in protest Monday, saying other nations are not acting quickly
enough to establish the Middle East as a zone free of nuclear weapons.
A statement from Egypt’s foreign ministry said the nation ended its
participation in two weeks of Geneva talks out of frustration that the zone
has yet to be created. The talks run through this week.
“We can’t wait forever for the implementation of this decision,” said the
ministry’s statement Monday night, explaining that Egypt’s walkout was meant
to send a message to the world that it can no longer accept what it
considers to be a lack of seriousness on the issue….. At the 1995 review,
nations adopted the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East, in a concession by
the U.S. and others to the Arabs, who wanted Israel to join the treaty and
to give up its unacknowledged arsenal of nuclear weapons. In exchange, the
Arabs backed the treaty’s permanent extension.
But after 15 years of inaction on a nuclear-free zone, Egypt proposed that
the 2010 conference endorse launching negotiations to establish one. With no
talks started, Egypt said Monday that some other members of the treaty – and
non-members – are “obstructing” the goal. Though it did not specify, the
reference to non-members was seen as implying Israel.
Ahead of the Geneva talks to prevent the spread of nuclear arms, the U.N.
Security Council’s five major powers – Britain, China, France, Russia and
the United States – had again called for progress in establishing a
nuclear-free Middle East.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/egypt-nuclear-talks_n_3181087.html
Questioning the wisdom of Netanyahu’s nuclear brinkmanship
Analysis – Israeli credibility on line over Iran nuclear challenge, The West, By Crispian Balmer and Dan Williams, 29 April 13 JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israel risks a loss of credibility over both its “red line” for Iran’s nuclear programme and its threat of military action, and its room for unilateral manoeuvre is shrinking.
After years of veiled warnings that Israel might strike the Islamic Republic, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out an ultimatum at the United Nations last September.
Iran, he said, must not amass enough uranium at 20 percent fissile purity to fuel one bomb if enriched further. To ram the point home, he drew a red line across a cartoon bomb, guaranteeing him front page headlines around the world.
However, a respected Israeli ex-spymaster says Iran has skilfully circumvented the challenge. Other influential voices say the time has passed when Israel can hit out at Iran alone, leaving it dependent on U.S. decision-makers……
some officials have also questioned the wisdom of Netanyahu’s red line, arguing that such brinkmanship can generate unwelcome ambiguity -….. Tehran denies there is any military component to its nuclear activities, saying it is focused only on civilian energy needs. It charges that Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, is the greater regional threat.
Keeping in step with Netanyahu, Israeli defence and military officials issued clear warnings this month that Israel was still prepared to go it alone against Iran, once more beating the drums of war after months of relative quiet……
But there is increasing scepticism within diplomatic circles about the viability of such an option. Envoys doubt that the Israeli military could now make much of a dent on Iran’s far-flung, well-fortified nuclear installations……. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/16914529/analysis-israeli-credibility-on-line-over-iran-nuclear-challenge/
Problems with USA – South Korea nuclear partnership
Washington, Seoul Seek To Extend Nuclear Partnership, VOA Scott Stearns April 26th, 2013 The United States and South Korea are major partners when it comes to the manufacture and sale of civilian nuclear power equipment. But that partnership, and maybe much more, could come under pressure if the two can’t come up with a broader agreement on licensing nuclear technology.
A big part of the problem, not surprisingly, is North Korea and its already advanced nuclear weapons program…….. http://blogs.voanews.com/state-department-news/2013/04/26/washington-seoul-seek-to-extend-nuclear-partnership/
No agreement between USA and South Korea on enriching uranium
South Korea and U.S. Fail to Reach Deal on Nuclear Energy, NYT, By CHOE SANG-HUN, April 24, 2013 SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea and the Obama administration delayed the deadline for a deal that Seoul had hoped would allow it to begin making its own fuel for its civil nuclear energy program, but that the United States feared would undermine its attempts to curb nuclear proliferation. It had appeared that a deal might be reached this year, but officials in both countries said the deadline would slip until 2016.
The government of President Park Geun-hye has been pushing hard for the United States to lift a ban, part of a treaty signed in 1972, that prevents South Korea from enriching uranium and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.
But the same technologies are also used to make material for nuclear weapons. American officials have said that lifting the ban would have complicated diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear programs and to stop any attempt by Iran to develop atomic weapons….. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/world/asia/south-korea-and-us-fail-to-reach-nuclear-energy-deal.html
Australian uranium company Paladin will now have to give Malawi a fair deal
Malawi to renogotiate with Paladin on the Kayerekera uranium deal http://www.malawitoday.com/news/128733-malawi-renogotiate-paladin-kayerekera-uranium-deal 14 April 2013 ZODIAK RADIO Malawi has finally succumbed to pressure from activists to start re-negotiating with Paladin Africa Limited on the Kayerekera Uranium deal in a last ditch attempt to create a win-win situation.
First on the proposal is to remove the confidentiality clause on the agreement such that it be made public before rectifying other strings within the deal.
Minister of Mines Mr John Bande confirmed that discussions are underway with Paladin Africa Limited on the matter.
“We are working out on modalities to discuss in public the agreement between Kayerekera and the Malawi Government,” said Bande.
Bande blamed the previous regime for putting a confidentiality clause on the license. “Now government is working to remove that clause so that the deal can be discussed in public,” said Bande.
Critics have continuously called on government to re-negotiate the license, saying Malawi is getting a raw deal from it.
Issued in 2009 the Kayerekera uranium mine license is for a period of 15 years and is subject to renewal.
The license among others also allowed the miner to open an off-shore account.
According to the deal, Malawi was meant to be collecting a meager US$ 100 million in taxes annually from the deal.
1 This Month
10 June – Assessing Canada’s Investments in Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – https://zoom.us/meeting/register/IiqHA5feRhaEBycOLNTJlA#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (89)
- May 2026 (306)
- 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)
-
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 