Rocket Lab: Helping the US wage endless wars from space
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2022/10/25/rocket-lab-helping-the-us-wage-endless-wars-from-space/By John Minto, October 25, 2022
It’s clear local mana whenua were misled by Rocket Lab founder Peter Beck when iwi land at Mahia Peninsula was leased to launch satellites into space.
At the time Peter Beck was clear Rocket Lab would be used for civilian purposes only and would not take up military contracts, despite this being a particularly lucrative path to take.
Fast forward a few years and we find Beck has abandoned any principles he may have had and his company is now majority owned by the US military and is launching satellites for US military purposes.
The government has to sign off on each launch to make sure it is in line with what’s acceptable to this country but it’s clearly a rubber stamp process conducted by Stuart Nash.
Any assurances from Peter Beck or Economic and Regional Development Minister Stuart Nash, who signs off on the launches for the government, that Rocket Lab’s work is for the betterment of mankind are not credible.
Peter Beck sets up straw man arguments saying claims of Rocket Lab weaponizing space are “misinformation” and the company would “not deal in weapons”. “We’re certainly not going to launch weapons or anything that damages the environment or goes and hurts people,” he told Newshub last year.
What nonsense. These are “straw-man” arguments. No-one has claimed the rockets contain weapons but what is absolutely clear is that the US military launches rockets for military purposes and this is what is happening at Mahia.
The NZ Herald reported last year on the capabilities of “Gunsmoke-J satellites”, which have been launched from Mahia for the US military, saying:
The other is the “Gunsmoke-J” satellite being launched for the US Army’s Space and Missile Defence Command (SMDC).
Gunsmoke-J is a prototype for a possible series of nano-satellites that will collect targeting data “in direct support of Army combat operations” according to a US Army fact sheet and a US Department of Defence budget document.
Green MP and party spokesperson for security and intelligence, Teanau Tuiono, is right to speak out:
“Weaponising space is not in our national interest and goes against our international commitments to ensuring peace in space,”
“The government should put in place clear rules that stop our whenua being used to launch rockets on behalf of foreign militaries”
“We should not be a launching pad for satellites for America’s military and intelligence agencies,” Green Party security and intelligence spokesman Teanau Tuiono said.
Rocket Lab is donkey deep with US strategies for “full spectrum dominance of the planet – including space. In doing so Beck and the government have made Mahia a target for conventional or even tactical nuclear weapons if hostilities break out between the US and another world power.
It’s ironic that the government provided start-up funds for Beck to get Rocket Lab off the ground only for Aotearoa New Zealand to find the company has put us to bed with a foreign military and made us target for conventional or nuclear attack.
Mana whenua in Mahia are right to be concerned – and so should the rest of us.
The government is “consulting” at the moment on these issues in their Space Policy Review.
Make a submission for the peaceful use of space here (Deadline 31 October)
Russian delegation at UN calls on USA to join initiative to renounce weapons in space
Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s comment on the US initiative in the UN General Assembly First Committee
The other day, the US delegation submitted to the UN General Assembly First Committee an aide-memoire on proposed UN General Assembly resolution on destructive direct-ascent anti-satellite missile testing. We analysed the text to discover that our apprehensions concerning this US initiative were valid.
As before, we regard the moratorium on testing the above type of anti-satellite weapon (ASW) announced by the White House in April as a purely declarative move. The UN General Assembly statements and draft resolutions are clearly not enough to prevent an arms race in space (PARIS), all the more so for a country that has had experience – at least since 2008 – destroying space objects with ASW.
The United States remains bashfully silent about the most important thing: are they willing to permanently rule out the combat use of this type of weapon? The resolution says nothing about it. There are no commitments regarding the development and production of such systems, or the prospect of ever destroying the Pentagon’s existing anti-satellite capabilities.
Moreover, the possibility of deploying ASW means on the US reusable unmanned space shuttle X-37B, which is capable of staying in orbit for a long time, performing manoeuvres and carrying a payload, cannot be ruled out. By the way, our multiple requests to the United States to clarify the X-37B platform’s goals and objectives have so far remained unanswered.
Military dominance and superiority in outer space being set as clear goals in US doctrinal documents, their view of space as an arena of confrontation and their plans for achieving these goals are quite telling if one wants to understand Washington’s genuine motives. It is no coincidence that the US delegation at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament is doing its utmost to hinder the start of talks on a multilateral instrument which contains reliable international legal guarantees against deploying weapons of any kind in outer space and the renunciation of the use of force or the threat of force against space objects. The Americans are using every pretext to avoid working on the Russian-Chinese draft treaty designed to fulfill PARIS goals………………….
Washington can prove it has serious intentions if it revises its destructive stance and the US delegation that is participating in the Conference on Disarmament joins the efforts to start talks as soon as possible on a legally binding instrument with guarantees of non-deployment of weapons in space, non-use of force or threat of force against space objects.
Specifically, the approach promoted by Russia involves the following commitments:
– not to use space objects as a means of destroying any targets on Earth, in the air or outer space;
– not to create, test or deploy weapons in space to perform any tasks, including for anti-missile defence, anti-satellite activity, or use against targets on Earth or in the air, and to eliminate such systems that the states already possess;
– not to create, test, deploy or use space weapons for anti-missile defence, anti-satellite activity, or use against targets on Earth or in the air;
– not to destroy, damage, or disrupt the normal functioning and not to change the flight paths of space objects owned by other states;
– not to assist or encourage other states, groups of states, international, intergovernmental, or any non-governmental organisations, including non-governmental legal entities that were established, registered or located on the territory under their jurisdiction and/or control, to participate in the above activities.
In addition, the accession of the United States and its allies to the international initiative/political commitment not to be the first to place weapons of any kind in outer space would be a really important confidence-building measure. We are once again calling on Washington to follow the example of more than 30 UN member states and join this initiative, as well as to support the UNGA draft resolution on that matter.
We are ready to substantively and professionally discuss the US initiative in this context of multilateral efforts to arrive at a comprehensive solution to PARIS issues. https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1835061/
American companies might make fuel for small nuclear reactors, except that there seems to be no market for them.
Russia’s Uranium Dominance Threatens America’s Next-Gen Nuclear Plans, By Tsvetana Paraskova – Oct 23, 2022, 10:00 AM CDT
- The United States has ambitious plans for its nuclear power industry.
- Russia’s stranglehold on the uranium market threatens to delay progress in nextgen nuclear power projects.
- U.S. companies are scrambling to develop the domestic uranium supply chain needed to fuel nuclear power ambitions.
……………………..
there is one major hurdle to the construction of most advanced reactors under development in the United States—the uranium type of fuel on which those reactors are designed to run is currently sold commercially by only one company in the world. And that company is a subsidiary of Russia’s ROSATOM, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation.
The federal government and U.S. companies developing advanced nuclear reactors—including Bill Gates’ TerraPower—recognize the urgent need to eliminate reliance on a Russian state corporation for nuclear fuel for America’s next-generation nuclear reactors.
The association Uranium Producers of America noted during a Senate committee hearing after the Russian invasion of Ukraine that “almost none of the fuel needed to power America’s nuclear fleet today comes from domestic producers, while U.S. nuclear utilities purchase nearly half of the of the uranium they consume from state-owned entities (SEO) in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan.”
“We estimate that there is more than $1 billion in annual U.S. dollar purchases of nuclear fuel flowing to ROSATOM,” said Scott Melbye, president of the association and Executive Vice President at Uranium Energy Corp.
ROSATOM is not under Western sanctions after the Russian invasion of Ukraine because of the Russian state firm’s importance in the supply chain of the global nuclear power industry. But the U.S. firms developing the next generation of more efficient, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly nuclear reactors don’t want to do business with Russia anymore.
Hence, the need for a commercially viable and stable domestic supply chain of the fuel for those advanced reactors—HALEU, or high assay low enriched uranium. ……………………………………….
the U.S. government faces the “chicken and egg” dilemma in HALEU supply, Matt Bowen, Research Scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, and Paul M. Dabbar, Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the same center, wrote in a paper in May this year/
“Existing enrichment companies, such as Urenco, Orano, GLE, and Centrus, could make HALEU, but these companies would likely be hesitant to invest too much in building HALEU infrastructure and completing NRC licensing without being confident there will in fact be a profitable market for the product,” they say.
New Zealand MP says Rocket Lab launches could betray country’s anti-nuclear stance
The commercial space company rejects criticism of satellite launches for the US military,
Guardian, Eva Corlett in Wellington, @evacorlett 17 Oct 22,
A New Zealand commercial space company, Rocket Lab, has faced new opposition to its activities on behalf of foreign militaries, with one New Zealand Green MP saying its actions could fly in the face of the country’s anti-nuclear stance.
The American-New Zealand company, founded by Peter Beck in 2006, provides rockets to deliver payloads into orbit from its launch site on the Māhia Peninsula, in New Zealand’s north. A third of Rocket Lab’s activities have been on behalf of defence and national security agencies. These include launching US and Australian spy satellites, the controversial “Gunsmoke J” satellite, and most recently Nasa’s capstone spacecraft.
The company’s contracts with the US have been flagged as concerning by the Māhia community, the Green party, and Rocket Lab Monitor – a watchdog group.
In 2019, the New Zealand government banned launch activities that were not in the country’s national interest, or were a breach of both domestic and international laws. The minister for economic and regional development, Stuart Nash, who is also the MP for the area that covers the Māhia Peninsula, has the ability to veto space launches that are not considered to be in the national interest, including payloads that contribute to nuclear weapons programmes or support or enable specific defence, security or intelligence operations contrary to government policy.
But the Green party’s security and intelligence spokesperson, Teanau Tuiono warned last week that it is “unclear when the national interest test should be invoked” and that there is no guarantee the satellites will not be used to assist nuclear programmes.
“Weaponising space is not in our national interest and goes against our international commitments to ensuring peace in space,” he said.
“Launching space satellites from Aotearoa could improve the ability of foreign actors to control a nuclear explosive device,” Tuiono said. “But right now, the government is allowing operators like Rocket Lab to put payloads into space for the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command and the US Space Force.”
Tuiono said that this poses a risk to New Zealand’s nuclear-free stance, which was enshrined in law more than 35 years ago and is considered a defining moment in the country’s history.
“We risk betraying the anti-nuclear generation and handing our kids a less safe world,” Tuiono said………………………………………………………
Watchdog group, Rocket Lab Monitor, has said it’s skeptical that this is a fail-proof system and worries the country’s space agency lacks in-house expertise to assess if satellites are contributing to nuclear weapon programmes.
“It all relies on the ‘intent’ of a payload rather than monitoring what it actually ends up being used for,” its spokesperson Sonya Smith said.
Smith pointed to Rocket Lab’s 2021 launch of the “Gunsmoke-J” satellite – an experimental satellite that, according to the US army, can “provide tactically actionable targeting data” to “warfighters”, and to which Minister Nash admitted he was “unaware of [its] specific military capabilities”.
Last month, the government announced a new aerospace strategy, that includes further financial support for the emerging sector. At the same time, it opened a review to allow the public to give feedback on the future of New Zealand’s space policy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/17/new-zealand-mp-says-rocket-lab-launches-could-betray-countrys-anti-nuclear-stance
Anti-nuclear campaigners have raised fears about a plan to turn Trawsfynydd into a test-bed for a new generation of mini nuclear power plants.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority which owns the Trawsfynydd
nuclear power plant site has signed an agreement with the Welsh
government’s development company, Cwmni Egino, to share information on
how best to redevelop the site. Cwmni Egino chief executive Alan Raymant
has said that they are focused on installing one of a new generation of
mini nuclear reactors developed by Rolls-Royce, with an aim to start on the
work by 2027.
But anti-nuclear campaigners CND Cymru, Cymdeithas y Cymod,
CADNO, and PAWB have released a statement opposing the plans and backing
renewables instead. “Wales is already a net exporter of electricity, and
the investment into true renewables like wave, wind, tidal, and sun will be
much more effective than the billions washed down the nuclear drain,”
they said. “We jointly call on the NDA to reconsider its support of
nuclear development in Wales, and Trawsfynydd and Wylfa in particular, and
further call on the UK and Welsh Government to invest in the green, clean,
and renewable future of wave, wind, and sun that we all deserve.”
Last month anti-nuclear campaigners have protested against plans for new nuclear
power stations to be built in Wales with a 70-mile march across Gwynedd and
Anglesey. Plaid Cymru Gwynedd Council leader Dyfrig Siencyn is among those
to have backed the plans for a new reactor at the nuclear power plant,
which employed 500 people when in operation between 1967 and 1993.
“There’s quite a strong anti-nuclear lobby, and they have been
demonstrating recently; we received a petition from them as a council,”
he told the Telegraph newspaper. “But I think we need nuclear energy if
we are serious about addressing the climate change emergency.”
Nation Cymru 14th Oct 2022 https://nation.cymru/news/anti-nuclear-campaigners-raise-fears-about-trawsfynydd-mini-nuke-test-bed-plans/
Small modular nuclear reactors risky venture for Saskatchewan
https://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/letters/letters-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-risky-venture-for-saskatchewan 16 Oct 22, Small modular reactors do not exist yet
Referring to nuclear as a possible part of our future energy mix in “SaskPower working to find right mix for the future,” (Oct. 5) CEO Rupen Pandya said “small modular reactors are smaller, easier to build, more affordable and safer”. This statement is both misleading and inappropriate.
Pandya’s use of the word “are” is a red flag: SMRs do not yet exist. The type of SMR SaskPower has selected to build — if it ever gets beyond the conceptual stage — would use enriched uranium fuel imported from the
USA, thus cannot be considered “safe”.
Are SMRs easier to build? We don’t know, since none have ever been built.
The exact cost of building the GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 is unknown, but would be in the billions of dollars, and is certainly less affordable than renewable energy options that are already available.
Nuclear power projects are prone to cost over-runs and delays — but this is an advantage for the companies involved in their design and construction, as it means more money will be be transferred to them from
the taxpayer.
An energy mix based on expensive, uncertain and risky SMRs would foreclose on building a truly sustainable energy future based on energy conservation and renewable sources like solar, wind, hydro, geothermal
and energy storage systems.
SaskPower should be listening — not trying to sell us on a particular option.
Cathy Holtslander, Saskatoon
SMRs are hardly emissions free
Re. Cameco engineer Brahm Neufeld’s letter on small modular reactors.
The marketing of SMRs has been entirely fraudulent. No emissions? Of course there will be emissions. All nuclear power plants must release radioactive gases, tritium and krypton intermittently and sometime inadvertently.
If carbon dioxide is included it would likely be radioactive carbon-14. Green? The carbon cost of building, mining, refining, enriching and decommissioning is many times that of solar and wind.
Dale Dewar, Wynyard
Report: small nuclear reactors an ‘uncertain and unproven’ technology that could delay Australia’s transition to renewables
Australian Conservation Foundation report finds modular reactors are expensive and introduce unnecessary challenges in managing radioactive waste
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Graham Readfearn 5 Oct 22,
The next generation of small nuclear reactors being advocated by the Coalition would raise electricity prices, slow the uptake of renewables and introduce new risks from nuclear waste, according to a report from the Australian Conservation Foundation.
But the report from the conservation group has found only two small modular reactors (SMRs) are known to be operating around the world, in Russia and China, and both have seen large cost blowouts.
Promoters of nuclear energy, the report claims, were pinning their hopes on technology that was “uncertain and unproven”.
“The good news about the renewed nuclear discussion is that it highlights that business as usual with fossil fuels is not an option,” the report found.
“The bad news is the very real risk of delay, distraction and a failure to advance a just energy transition”.
Last week during question time, the energy minister, Chris Bowen, mocked the Coalition for supporting nuclear and asked which MP would be willing to have a reactor in their electorate.
Nuclear energy has been effectively banned in Australia since the late 1990s, but some Coalition senators are pushing for those restrictions to be lifted.
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has tasked the shadow climate minister, Ted O’Brien, to review the status of nuclear energy.
In the report Dave Sweeney, ACF’s Nuclear Free campaigner, wrote SMRs would push up electricity costs and introduce unnecessary challenges in managing nuclear waste.
“In short, Australia’s energy future is renewable, not radioactive,” he wrote.
According to the report, Russia’s floating nuclear plant, the Akademik Lomonosov, has two small SMR units on board. Construction costs had ballooned sixfold.
Work started in 2012 on a demonstration plant in China with two gas-cooled reactors that was completed nine years later, costing $8.8bn.
“The global SMR reality simply does not come close to matching the Australian SMR rhetoric,” the report says.
Three further SMR plants were under construction in Argentina, China and Russia but had been plagued by cost rises and delays, the report said.
In June, a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested future deployment of SMRs could increase the amount of nuclear waste by factors of two to 30, depending on the design.
……………………………………….. In June the International Energy Agency said SMRs were not yet commercially viable, but “lower cost, smaller size and reduced project risks” could improve social acceptance.
There was increased support and interest in Canada, France, UK and the US for the technology, the report said, adding: “But the successful long-term deployment of SMRs hinges on strong support from policymakers starting now, not just to mobilise investment but also to streamline and harmonise regulatory frameworks.” https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/report-small-nuclear-reactors-an-uncertain-and-unproven-technology-that-could-delay-australias-transition-to-renewables/
Britain’s new Energy Secretary suffering from the ‘nuclear fusion delusion’
In his speech to the 2022 Conservative Party Conference, the Britain’s
newly-appointed Energy Secretary has shown that, like those in office
before him, he too is suffering from the ‘fusion delusion’.
To the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA), the condition represents a mistaken
belief in someone in high political office that fusion can address the
nation’s future energy needs by providing access to cheap, green power in
defiance of the reality that the technology is far from being
scientifically certain, far from being economically viable, potentially
unsafe, too costly, and still comes with a legacy of nuclear waste – and
that it will in any case come decades too late to address Britain’s
immediate energy / cost-of-living crisis or the urgent need to curb carbon
emissions to arrest the worsening climate emergency.
In his first conference speech as Energy Secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg lauded the merits of
fusion energy and announced that a new pilot plant will be established on
the site of the former West Burton A coal-fired power plant in
Nottinghamshire describing it as a ‘beacon of bountiful green
energy…proving the commercial viability of fusion energy to the world’.
NFLA 6th Oct 2022
TODAY. Small Nuclear Reactors have only one use – to lead and help the global nuclear weapons juggernaut
Once again, credible sources reiterate that ‘advanced nuclear’ technology – especially Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) are:
- non-existent as a functioning electricity source
- the most expensive of all energy sources
- not really small anyway 300MWe (and cunningly designated “medium” – up to 700MWe)
- serious producers of toxic, virtually eternal, wastes
- Thorium ones need plutonium or enriched uranium to start the reaction
- require huge security – safety and proliferation risks
- Millions of them needed to be effective against climate change, but none available till long after urgent action is needed.
- Distract and divert attention, energy and money away from real climate solutions.
So – why on Earth are all the powerful governments and media constantly trumpeting the virtues of Small Nuclear Reactors?
There is only one real reason:
Small Nuclear Reactors are essential for the nuclear weapons industry.
As the Big Nuclear power industry is failing, and cyclotrons now produce medical radioisotopes, there is really no need for the so-called “peaceful” nuclear industry (except for the massive clean-up jobs)
The Small Nuclear Reactor fantasy keeps the whole show, the whole hypocrisy, alive.
Starting with the (dubiously useful) nuclear submarines – the small nuclear reactor dream is already taking shape. But the industry needs a nice, clean-sounding ‘cover’ for its real killer purpose. Hence the foolish frenzy for “Nice Clean, Climate-helping, Waste-eating, Jobs-providing” Small Nuclear Reactors. (go to Google – you will find nothing but a procession of these lies.
Ukraine War Exposes Risks to Deploying Small Nuclear Reactors
- Small modular reactors are seen as the future of atomic energy
- Russian seizure of atomic plant exposes safety vulnerabilities
By Jonathan Tirone, October 6, 2022, The Russian army’s seizure of the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe isn’t just exposing Ukrainians to the risk of an atomic accident but may also undermine plans to install new miniature reactors in far-flung places. ……… (subscribers only) more https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-05/ukraine-war-shows-new-risk-to-nuclear-power-s-next-small-thing#xj4y7vzkg
NextEra Energy finds that small nuclear reactors (SMRs) really are the biggest boondoggle of all
There were a couple of interesting developments in June in regards to electric power. One was that NextEra Energy issued its Investor Conference Report 2022 to its stockholders. Another was a paper from Stanford University, “Low-cost solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy insecurity for 145 countries,” (LCS study) by Mark Z. Jacobson, et al. Looking into them is rather interesting.
The first of these makes very clear that in the opinions of the people running NextEra Energy, combustion
generating sources and nuclear power are getting too expensive. Furthermore, their opinion is that the most expensive of these, at least in the late 2020s, will be small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).
We should make clear, just in case anyone doesn’t know, that NextEra is hardly anti-nuclear. While it is already the biggest investor in renewable energy in the US, it does own seven nuclear reactors, including the one at Seabrook. Electricity from new, near-firm solar and wind plants is a good deal less expensive than electricity from existing nuclear plants.
Let’s state this clearly: We are paying extra for electricity from nuclear plants, even after they have been paid down, and even though the sun can shine and the wind can blow almost all the time, because of really cheap battery storage. Put another way, it would be cheaper to close the nuclear plants and replace them with new renewable facilities.
Clean Technica 4th Oct 2022 https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/04/why-should-we-pay-extra-for-nuclear-power/
Nuclear fusion – public money wasted on this unproven technology
UK ministers have been criticised for “pouring billions of pounds of
public money into unproven technology” by pressed ahead with nuclear
fusion investment. The warning comes after North Ayrshire lost out on
becoming the site of the UK’s first fusion energy plant having been
shortlisted.
Herald 4th Oct 2022
Small modular reactors: What is taking so long?
Next-generation nuclear has long been just around the corner, but debate still rages over the silver-bullet credentials of small modular reactors.
By Oliver Gordon The growing urgency of the climate crisis and, more recently, the energy crisis has reawakened global interest in nuclear energy. Even the likes of Bill Gates and Elon Musk have waded into the debate to petition for a more prominent role for nuclear power in the transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. To that end, there is much expectation surrounding the development of small modular reactors (SMRs), a new generation of nuclear reactors that are being marketed as the solution to all of nuclear power’s previous shortcomings.
To that end, there is much expectation surrounding the development of small
modular reactors (SMRs), a new generation of nuclear reactors that are
being marketed as the solution to all of nuclear power’s previous
shortcomings.
In fact, SMRs are not forecast to hit the commercial market
before 2030, and although SMRs are expected to have lower up-front capital
costs per reactor, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in
practice once they are deployed at scale.
Nuclear reactors are extremely
complex systems that must comply with stringent safety requirements, taking
into account a wide variety of accident scenarios. The licensing process is
extensive and country-dependent, implying some standardisation will be
required for SMRs to properly take off.
However – beyond the perennial
oscillation of public acceptance of nuclear energy – there are still a
variety of challenges SMR technology needs to overcome before it can reach
commercial deployment. “The hardest is economics,” says M V Ramana, the
Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the School of
Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia,
Canada, and author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in
India. “Nuclear energy is an expensive way to generate electricity.”
Energy Monitor (accessed) 21st Sept 2022
https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/small-modular-reactors-smrs-what-is-taking-so-long
Small nuclear reactors emerge as energy option, but risks loom
The search for alternative sources to Russian energy during the war in Ukraine has refocused attention on smaller, easier-to-build nuclear power stations.
The Indian Express, By: AP Nicosia (cyprus) September 11, 2022. A global search for alternative sources to Russian energy during the war in Ukraine has refocused attention on smaller, easier-to-build nuclear power stations, which proponents say could provide a cheaper, more efficient alternative to older model mega-plants…………
While Rolls-Royce SMR and its competitors have signed deals with countries from Britain to Poland to start building the stations, they are many years away from operating and cannot solve the energy crisis now hitting Europe.
Nuclear power also poses risks, including disposing of highly radioactive waste and keeping that technology out of the hands of rogue countries or nefarious groups that may pursue a nuclear weapons program.Those risks have been accentuated following the shelling around Europe’s largest nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, which has raised fears of potential nuclear disaster in the wake of the war
………………………………. Similarly, Oregon-based NuScale Power signed agreements last year with two Polish companies — copper and silver producer KGHM and energy producer UNIMOT — to explore the possibility of building SMRs to power heavy industry. ……….. Rolls-Royce SMR said last month that it signed a deal with Dutch development company ULC-Energy to look into setting up SMRs in the Netherlands. Another partner is Turkey, where Russia is building the Akkuyu nuclear power plant on the southern coast. Environmentalists say the region is seismically active and could be a target for terrorists.
The introduction of unproven nuclear power technology in the form of SMRs doesn’t sit well with environmentalists, who argue that proliferation of small reactors will exacerbate the problem of how to dispose of highly radioactive nuclear waste.“Unfortunately, Turkey is governed by an incompetent administration that has turned it into a ‘test bed’ for corporations,” said Koray Dogan Urbarli, a spokesman for Turkey’s Green Party.“It is giving up the sovereignty of a certain region for at least 100 years for Russia to build a nuclear power plant. This incompetence and lobbying power make Turkey an easy target for SMRs,” said Koray, adding that his party eschews technology with an “uncertain future.”
……………….. M.V. Ramana, professor of public policy and global affairs at the University of British Columbia, cites research suggesting there’s “no demonstrated way” to ensure nuclear waste stored in what authorities consider to be secure sites won’t escape in the future. The constant heat generated by the waste could alter rock formations where it’s stored and allow water seepage, while future mining activities could compromise a nuclear waste site’s integrity, said Ramana, who specializes in international security and nuclear energy.
Skeptics also raise the risks of possibly exporting such technology in politically tumultuous regions……………
Ramana said that there’s no guarantee nations will follow the rules. “Any country acquiring nuclear reactors automatically enhances its capacity to make nuclear weapons,” he said, adding that every SMR could produce “around 10 bombs worth of plutonium each year.”…………………………… more https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/small-nuclear-reactors-emerge-as-energy-option-but-risks-loom-8143584/
1 This Month
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
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 (129)
- 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 