nuclear-news

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

Nuclear power risks rising in Russia-Ukraine war

Dr Philip Webber, SGR, warns that another nuclear power plant is at major risk as the war enters new territory.

Responsible Science blog, 22 August 2024 more https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/nuclear-power-risks-rising-russia-ukraine-war—

The Russia-Ukraine war has already led to extremely serious risks to nuclear power plants. In a previous article, [1] I described in some detail those related to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (ZNPP) in Ukraine. The situation there has once again deteriorated – as I discuss below – but I want to focus first on the threat to another power station.

Kursk

Due to the Ukraine military incursion into the Kursk region of the Russian Federation, which began on 15 August, [2] there is now a severe risk to the huge Kursk nuclear power plant (KNPP) – which has elements in common with the Chernobyl plant. The KNPP is located some 60 kilometres from the border with Ukraine and is, at the time of writing, close to an area of fierce fighting. As a result, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has issued further warnings to remind the warring parties to not risk a nuclear disaster in Europe. [3][4]

The KNPP – like the ZNPP – includes six nuclear reactors, and is also one of the three biggest nuclear power stations in Russia. But there are two critical differences. First, two of the KNPP reactors are operating at full power. Second, these two reactors are of the same design – the RBMK – as the Chernobyl nuclear plant, which suffered the world’s worst nuclear accident in 1986. Crucially, these reactors have no protective dome structure [5] making them very vulnerable to a military strike or aircraft impact. With intense fighting only a few tens of kilometres away, both reactors are well within the range of artillery or rocket fire. A military strike on either reactor could initiate a very serious release of radioactive material creating a Europe-wide nuclear disaster.

It is anticipated that the IAEA will soon visit the Kursk NPP to assess the situation on the ground.

Zaporizhzhia

Returning to the situation at the Zaporizhzhia NPP, IAEA inspectors stationed there have again reported intense military activity – artillery, rocket and heavy machine-gun fire – very close to the plant, and several instances of explosive drone strikes on the plant itself, as well as on vital electrical substations and surrounding woodland. [6] One of the two ZNPP cooling towers was hit, fires were started beside an electrical sub-station resulting in a loss of power, and the perimeter road was cratered.

The six ZNPP reactors are all in ‘cold shutdown’ but rely on a supply of electricity to power pumps for water cooling of the reactor cores – and a large number of spent fuel storage tanks – to prevent overheating to dangerous levels and a resultant release of radioactive material. The reliable supply of water remains a serious problem and emergency supplies of fuel for emergency diesel generators are also dangerously low.

Drone attacks also continue to be reported near Ukraine’s other nuclear power sites. [7]

The IAEA Director General, Rafael Grossi, has issued a series of warnings reminding both Russia and Ukraine of UN agreements to avoid military activity at or near nuclear plants. [8] However, the only way to remove these risks completely is for a rapid, negotiated end to the war.
 

Dr Philip Webber is Co-chair of Scientists for Global Responsibility. He has written widely on the risks of nuclear weapons and nuclear power – including co-authoring the book, London After the Bomb. He spent part of his career working as an emergency planner in local government.
 

References………………………………………………..

August 27, 2024 Posted by | Russia, safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Why the big push for nuclear power as “green”?

Why is it so difficult to recognise that – as is normal with technologies – nuclear energy is obsolescing? 

nuclear affections are a military romance. Powerful defence interests – with characteristic secrecy and highly active PR – are mostly driving the dogged persistence. 

     https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/08/25/why-the-big-push-for-nuclear-power-as-green/

Heavy lobbying by France and a “military romance” provide some answers, write Andy Stirling and Phil Johnstone

Whatever one’s view of nuclear issues, an open mind is crucial. Massive vested interests and noisy media clamour require efforts to view a bigger picture. A case in point arises around the European Commission’s much criticised proposal – and the European Parliament’s strongly opposed decision – to last year accredit nuclear power as a ‘green’ energy source.   

In a series of legal challenges, the European Commission and NGOs including Greenpeace are tussling over what kind and level of ’sustainability’ nuclear power might be held to offer. 

To understand how an earlier more sceptical EC position on nuclear was overturned, deeper questions are needed about a broader context. Recent moves in Brussels follow years of wrangling. Journalists reported intense lobbying – especially by the EU’s only nuclear-armed nation: France. At stake is whether inclusion of nuclear power in the controversial ‘green taxonomy’ will open the door to major financial support for ‘sustainable’ nuclear power. 

Notions of sustainability were (like climate concerns) pioneered in environmentalism long before being picked up in mainstream policy. And – even when its comparative disadvantages were less evident – criticism of nuclear was always central to green activism. So, it might be understood why current efforts from outside environmentalism to rehabilitate nuclear as ‘sustainable’ are open to accusations of ‘greenwash’ and ‘doublespeak’.

In deciding such questions, the internationally-agreed ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ are a key guide. These address various issues associated with all energy options – including costs and wellbeing, health effects, accident risks, pollution and wastes, landscape impacts and disarmament issues. So, do such comparative pros and cons of nuclear power warrant classification alongside wind, solar and efficiency?   

On some aspects, the picture is relatively open. All energy investments yield employment and development benefits, largely in proportion to funding. On all sides, simply counting jobs or cash flowing through favoured options and forgetting alternatives leads to circular arguments. If (despite being highlighted in the Ukraine War), unique vulnerabilities of nuclear power to attack are set aside, then the otherwise largely ‘domestic’ nature of both nuclear and renewables can be claimed to be comparable.

Orderings are more stark on economics and environment. Despite room for many views, it is difficult to deny that history raises especially grave queries about nuclear power. Nuclear costs have long been acknowledged to be far less competitive than renewables. Multiple nuclear accidents have occurred of kinds initially claimed to have ‘negligible’ likelihood. Nuclear waste “solutions” are still largely undeveloped. New questions continually arise about assumptions underpinning ‘safe levels’ of ionising radiation. Build times far exceeding those promised have helped cause nuclear bankruptcy and fraud. Growth rates of renewables surpass what government officials even quite recently claimed to be physically possible. Associated trends nearly all favour renewables.

But what of climate urgency? Does this not justify nuclear proponents’ calls to “do everything” to “keep the nuclear option open” (as if this were an end in itself)? Again: deeper thought might expose this as special pleading. Precisely because climate action is so imperative, isn’t it more rational to prioritise whatever is most substantial, cost effective and rapid? 

A more reasoned approach might ask about long-neglected kinds of statistical analysis, which show that national carbon emission reductions tend to associate less with nuclear than with renewable uptake. Key reasons here include that nuclear contributions to climate targets are smaller, slower and more expensive than are offered by renewables. So other evidence that nuclear and renewable energy strategies also tend to conflict further queries the ‘sustainable’ status of nuclear power.

What then of claimed needs for ‘baseload’ power – to manage variable outputs from some renewables? Surprisingly given its public profile, this notion is long abandoned by the electricity industry as “outdated”. Nuclear power is itself inflexible in its own way. Myriad system innovations, grid improvements, demand measures and new storage technologies are all available to better address variable renewables over different timescales. Even in relatively pro-nuclear UK, it is authoritatively documented how a 100% renewable system outperforms any level of nuclear contribution. Even the UK Government now admits that adding these costs still leaves renewables outcompeting nuclear. In less nuclear-committed European countries, the picture is even more stark. 

So, as this picture has unfolded, nuclear ‘sustainability’ arguments have retreated through successively undermined claims – that nuclear is “necessary”; brooks “no alternative”; is “more competitive”; uniquely offers to “keep the lights on”; or is just a way to “do everything” (as if this was ever a sensible response to any challenge, especially one as urgent and existential as climate disruption). 

Whatever position one starts from, then, a final question arises: why all the fuss? Why should it be now after all these years (just as its comparative performance becomes so much less favourable) that European efforts become so newly energetic to redefine nuclear as ‘sustainable’? Why is it so difficult to recognise that – as is normal with technologies – nuclear energy is obsolescing? 

Here, the answer is surprisingly obvious. It is officially repeatedly confirmed in countries working hardest to revive nuclear power – atomic weapons states like the US, France, the UK, Russia and China. Oddly neglected in mainstream energy policy and the media, the picture is especially evident on the defence side. Although skewed public debates leave many unaware, nuclear affections are a military romance. Powerful defence interests – with characteristic secrecy and highly active PR – are mostly driving the dogged persistence.

The result is clear. Dubiously justified in climate terms, elevated consumer prices, government funding and public risk underwriting all help maintain a joint civil/military ‘nuclear industrial base’. In nuclear armed countries like the UK and France, this helps fund – outside defence budgets, off the public books and away from due scrutiny – expensive specialist nuclear skills, supply chains, research facilities, navy recruitment, wider infrastructures. In particular, the building and operating of nuclear propelled submarines would be unaffordable without these concealed cross-subsidies. Without nuclear power, it would become much harder to guarantee the later careers that are so essential in recruiting nuclear-trained officers.

As President Macron recently said “without civilian nuclear, no military nuclear, without military nuclear, no civilian nuclear”. This is the main reason why France is pressing so hard for nuclear to be supported by the European Union as ‘sustainable’. This is why non-nuclear-armed Germany has been more open to grasping nuclear realities. This is why France and Germany find themselves at such loggerheads on this issue. This is why the UK Government so opposes this – and is so fixated on support for general nuclear skills. This is why other nuclear-armed states in general, are so resolutely fixated by the slow, small and costly nuclear response to the climate emergency. 

A decision has yet to be reached on whether the inclusion of nuclear by the European Commission in their Green Taxonomy is unlawful. Yet it is clear that nuclear compares poorly to other low carbon technologies when considered in terms of sustainability. What is especially concerning is that the military rationales that are influencing renewed enthusiasm for nuclear are largely unaddressed in policy and wider media coverage. That associated issues are so little discussed, raises grave concerns not just for energy and climate policy, but for European democracy as a whole. 

Andy Stirling is Professor of Science & Technology Policy in the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex. Philip Johnstone is Research Fellow, SPRU, University of Sussex.

August 26, 2024 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

Britain’s Dirtiest Beaches – Don’t Mention the Pu!

The cocktail of radioactive wastes on our beaches is a direct result of the uranium fuel industry whose product is actually nuclear wastes rather than the ephemeral here today gone tomorrow electricity. 

On  By mariannewildart,  https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2024/08/23/britains-dirtiest-beaches-dont-mention-the-pu/
Seascale and Haverigg are in the top 10 dirtiest beaches for poo – they also contain Pu (Plutonium) but no-one is looking at the health impacts of long lived radio-toxic pollution on our beaches.

The West Cumbrian coastline cradling the World Heritage Site of the Lake District has two entries in the top 10 dirtiest beaches featured in yesterday’s Express. While much is made quite rightly of the health impacts of sewage pollution no-one is willing to talk about the Pu (Plutonium) on West Cumbrian beaches and in harbours near the worlds riskiest nuclear waste site. Sellafield has a larger workforce 11,000+ than all the surrounding towns and villages put together. According to the Environment Agency “We are working with Sellafield Limited to investigate the potential impact of non-radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site. The primary focus is on sewage originating from the toilet facilities provided on site for the Sellafield workforce. The work is considering whether the level of sewage treatment needs to be enhanced to improve and protect the bathing water quality at Seascale thus protecting public health”.  2024 Bathing Water Profile for Seascale.

The West Cumbrian coastline cradling the World Heritage Site of the Lake District has two entries in the top 10 dirtiest beaches featured in yesterday’s Express. While much is made quite rightly of the health impacts of sewage pollution no-one is willing to talk about the Pu (Plutonium) on West Cumbrian beaches and in harbours near the worlds riskiest nuclear waste site. Sellafield has a larger workforce 11,000+ than all the surrounding towns and villages put together. According to the Environment Agency “We are working with Sellafield Limited to investigate the potential impact of non-radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site. The primary focus is on sewage originating from the toilet facilities provided on site for the Sellafield workforce. The work is considering whether the level of sewage treatment needs to be enhanced to improve and protect the bathing water quality at Seascale thus protecting public health”.  2024 Bathing Water Profile for Seascale.

Nuclear wastes continue to arrive daily and a vicious cocktail of nuclear wastes continues to pour into the Irish Sea daily. Enough was enough decades ago. But this gargantuan radio-toxic turd on the Lake District coastline continues to accept nuclear wastes from existing reactors in the UK while MPs, government and the nuclear industry agitate for ever more nuclear waste from new build next to Sellafeld and elsewhere. 

The cocktail of radioactive wastes on our beaches is a direct result of the uranium fuel industry whose product is actually nuclear wastes rather than the ephemeral here today gone tomorrow electricity. 

So the nuclear waste industry’s message is ‘Don’t mention the Pu.’ In fact the nuclear industry has a vested interest in encouraging youngsters to dig for hours on the beaches – its great PR for the nuclear waste industry and says “look we are great neighbours and we are giving you (tax payers) money for your beach events because the beaches are soooo safe.” 

August 26, 2024 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

The UK nuclear lobby’s festival of joyous propaganda.

The Sizewell C team has been raising awareness of the new nuclear power
project at community events across the county this summer. From The Suffolk
Show and the First Light Festival to Sotterley Country Fair, the team have
been engaging with thousands of people across the county as the project
continues to make significant progress.

“We’re really lucky in Suffolk to
have some of the best summer festivals and community events in the
country,” says Marjorie Barnes, Head of Regional External Affairs and
Development, Sizewell C. This week, Sizewell C volunteers attended the
Aldeburgh Carnival, and in September the team will be at the first Leiston
Book Festival.

Sizewell C 23rd Aug 2024

Keeping communities up to date at a summer of Suffolk events

August 26, 2024 Posted by | culture and arts, UK | Leave a comment

Hungary again breaks with West: Ukrainian attack on Kursk is ‘wrong’

Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge , 24 Aug 2024

Hungary has broken with its NATO and EU allies in condemning Ukraine’s Kursk incursion, calling it out as not purely ‘defensive’ but as part of needlessly provocative offensive operations against Russian territory.

Gergely Gulyas, top advisor and spokesman for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said in a Thursday press briefing that Budapest is staunchly “pro-peace” – and when asked about the ongoing Kursk invasion, he said: “Ukraine is not only defending, but also attacking. We want a ceasefire and peace.”

Gulyas went on to explain that Hungary is against anything which thwarts potential diplomatic settlement to the war. He said this is “wrong” given the offensive includes a “spillover of the hostilities into Russian territory.”

………………………………………………………………….. Orban has certainly not shared the same enthusiasm for developments in Kursk as other European leaders. For example, recently the EU’s top diplomat Josep Borrell “reiterated the EU’s full support to the [Ukrainian] people’s fight.”

…………………………….Interestingly, there’s been similar pushback coming from Italy of late related to the Kursk offensive, akin to Hungary’s criticisms:

Italy’s Defence Minister Guido Crosetto has ignited a political firestorm with comments that appear to question Ukraine’s military operations inside Russian territory, POLITICO reported. In an interview, Crosetto warned that ‘no country should invade another country’ and expressed concerns over the conflict escalating into Russian territory, which could complicate efforts toward peace. His remarks have raised doubts about Italy’s commitment to Ukraine, despite Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s staunch support for Kyiv since the start of Russia’s invasion.

Crosetto emphasized that the weapons provided to Ukraine by Italy are intended strictly for defensive purposes, clarifying that these arms ‘do not have the possibility of being used for an attack on Russian territory’.

On a strategic level, while Ukraine forces have certainly dealt a serious morale blow to Kremlin leadership, Russia is still on the advance in the Donbass, where the front line to the conflict is located. If and when Ukraine’s Kursk operation utterly fails, it will have translated into no actual strategic gains in eastern Ukraine.  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/hungary-again-breaks-west-ukrainian-attack-kursk-wrong

August 26, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

Fire at Zaporizhzhia elevates meltdown risk

13 Aug 24,  https://cnduk.org/fire-at-zaporizhzhia-elevates-meltdown-risk/

CND scientific advisor, radiation expert Dr Ian Fairlie writes about the elevated risks posed by the recent fire at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. 

The recent fire at the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine is causing much concern throughout Europe.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy company, Energoatom, which operated the site until Russian forces seized control in the early days of the war, confirmed that flames broke out at the service water supply facility, later engulfing one of the cooling towers. Both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky have traded blame for the fire. The six nuclear reactors at Zaporizhzhia are in cold shutdown and no nuclear activity was recorded on Sunday August 11, but the overall risk of nuclear meltdown remains elevated. 

In 1986, the huge nuclear accident at the Chornobyl nuclear station in Ukraine resulted in radioactive fallout throughout Europe including all of the UK.

Ideally, the UK government should make arrangements to pre-distribute prophylactic iodide tablets (to protect against thyroid cancer) to all individuals who wish them, as occurs in many countries, but it has resisted previous calls for this. Current UK official advice on iodide tablets merely states “you will be given official advice from government or emergency services on how to get them, when to take them and how much to take”.

In the absence of timely official UK advice, readers may wish to consult official US advice or the WHO’s advice.

August 26, 2024 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

“Final Investment Decision (FID) ” in Sizewell C nuclear station might never happen

There are media reports that a Final Investment Decision (FID) “risks
dragging into 2025″ over negotiations with investors. See Bloomberg’s
report, also New Civil Engineer and Energy Live News. These articles do not
consider whether a FID might not in fact ever happen, but we are keeping up
the pressure. Interestingly, while Bloomberg mentions four of the known
possible investors (see list below on original), USS and Equitix are absent. It’s
unclear what, if anything, this means but we are attempting to find out. If
you have not yet written to these companies to urge them not to invest, now
would be an excellent time to do so.

 Stop Sizewell C 22nd Aug 2024

https://mailchi.mp/stopsizewellc/fid-delay?e=326ee81c22

August 25, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Zelensky’s Misadventures in Kursk

This operation is likely to be working upside-down to what we are reading in corporate media.

Not long prior to the incursion, the Biden regime had given Kiev dispensation to use U.S.–made weapons against Russian targets so long as these were deployed in self-defense and against military targets.

the question remains. What is the point as the Kursk operation continues?

By Patrick Lawrence / Original to ScheerPost, 23 Aug 24

It has been three weeks since ground units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine crossed into the Kursk province in southwestern Russia, surprising — or maybe not surprising — the U.S. and its clients in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Two days later, the AFU began artillery and drone attacks in Belgorod, a province just south of Kursk. It has been a little more than a week since explosions at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, which lies in what is now Russian territory along the Dnipro River, ignited a fire in one of the plant’s two cooling towers. All six reactors are now in cold shutdown. 


In the still-to-be-confirmed file, BelTA, the Belarusian news agency, reported last weekend that Ukraine has amassed significant forces along the Belarus–Ukraine border. Aleksandr Lukashenko, the Belarusian president, put the troop count at an improbable 120,000. Further out in speculative territory, RT International reported at the weekend that the AFU is “preparing a nuclear false flag—an explosion of a dirty atomic bomb,” targeting nuclear-waste storage sites at the Zaporozhye plant. RT cited “intelligence received by Russia” and a military correspondent and documentarian named Marat Khairullin. 

Hmmm. 

When I began my adventures in the great craft at the New York Daily News long years ago, two of the better shards of wisdom I picked up were, “Go with what you’ve got” and “When in doubt, leave it out.” Let us proceed accordingly as we consider Ukraine’s latest doings in the proxy war it wages. I will leave aside the BelTA and RT International reports pending further developments, but with this caveat: Amassing units along the Belarus border would be entirely in keeping with the AFU’s recent forays into Russian territory. As for the imminence of a dangerous false flag op at the Zaporozhye plant, I would not put it past a regime that has acted recklessly and irrationally on numerous occasions in the past. 

Why, we are left to ask of what we know to be so, did the AFU send troops, tanks, artillery, drone units, and assorted matériel into Kursk on Tuesday, Aug. 6? And then the ancillary operation in Belgorod? Everyone wondered this at first—supposedly everyone, anyway. This is our question, and I will shortly get to the “supposedly.” 

On the eve of the incursion, Kiev was losing ground steadily to a new Russian advance in eastern Ukraine. Critically short of troops, the Ukrainian forces are, indeed, about to lose a tactically significant town, Pokrovsk, on their side of the Russian border. The thought that the AFU would sustain and expand its Kursk operation to bring the war to Russian territory in any effective way is prima facie preposterous. What was the point? Where is the strategic gain? 

In his speech Monday evening at the Democratic Party convention in Chicago, Joe Biden defended his proxy war in Ukraine as a just war waged in the name of democracy and liberty. Oh? setting aside the emptiness of this characterization, the question remains. What is the point as the Kursk operation continues? The AFU now holds one Russian town and six villages, according to the latest reports, which also indicate they have set about destroying bridges critical to Russian supply lines. But where to from here? I do not see a sensible answer. 

There is no question the Russians were caught off guard when the AFU crossed into the border village of Sudzha and proceeded with evidently little initial resistance further into Russian territory. Hundreds of thousands of Russians have been evacuated; the governor of Belgorod quickly declared a state of emergency after the drone and artillery strikes of Aug. 14. 

But we cannot count this as any kind of astute strategic move. I do not pretend to have an inside read as to Russia’s apparent intelligence failure or what looks like its flat-footed response. But I do not think we can correctly mark down events to date to the AFU’s superior strength or the Russians’ weakness or incompetence. Western correspondents are having a fine old time reporting that klutzy, clumsy Moscow is once again stumbling, but I buy none of it. In my view this is probably another case of Russian restraint: The AFU is using U.S. — and NATO — supplied weapons, and the Kremlin has all along been acutely sensitive to the risk of escalation against Kiev’s Western sponsors. 

My conclusion: No one’s script has flipped. This operation is likely to be working upside-down to what we are reading in corporate media. The best explanation they have come up with so far is that Kiev’s plan was to draw Russian forces away from the front on the Ukrainian side of the border. That has plainly not happened, however much The Times indulges in denial on this point. “And now Moscow has begun withdrawing some troops from Ukraine in an effort to repel Kyiv’s offensive into western Russia, Constant Méthuet reported Aug. 14 — before adding “according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials.” Crapulous journalism. Simply crapulous. There is no evidence of this whatsoever—only of further Russian gains as noted above. 

Inversely, the Kursk adventure required a lot of Ukrainian units to get going and more now to sustain. It is Kiev that is wasting resources on what is bound to end in retreat. The Russian military has not marshaled anything approaching its full force. This is likely to end when Moscow decides it should, and in the meantime the Russians appear to wage the same wearing war of attrition that has reduced the AFU to something close to a desperate force on the home front. 

The initial press reports of the Kursk adventure had it that top officials in Washington were caught entirely by surprise and were as perplexed as the rest of us as to the “Why?” of the thing. I do not accept this at face value, either. The Times ran a lengthy report on the Ukrainians’ preparations, featuring residents in the towns bordering Kursk remarking for weeks about the buildup of AFU units and matériel before the operation began. Russian intelligence took note, The Times also reported. And the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies, and the administration were all taken by surprise? To quote an East European emigre I knew in the old days, “Gimme break.”

Not long prior to the incursion, the Biden regime had given Kiev dispensation to use U.S.–made weapons against Russian targets so long as these were deployed in self-defense and against military targets. And the only reason the U.S. is at all interested in Ukraine, we must remind ourselves—forget about freedom and democracy, for heaven’s sake—is for its use in prosecuting the West’s long, varied campaign to subvert “Putin’s Russia.” This remains the ultimate objective. In the matter of Washington’s hand in directing the Zelensky regime from one adventure to another, Biden’s national security people wear more fig leaves than you find on a tree in Tuscany. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Maybe Zelensky wants some Russian real estate as a bargaining advantage in negotiations with Russia he has come to accept as inevitable. It is possible but does not fit with his adamant insistence that the full restoration of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, is non negotiable — a precondition to any diplomacy. And as in Netanyahu’s case, a settlement would put his political future greatly in doubt. 

In any case, Zelensky chose badly when the AFU crossed into Russian territory at Kursk. The Red Army’s defeat of the Wehrmacht at Kursk, in 1943, was the largest battle in the history of warfare and left roughly 1.7 million Russians dead, wounded, or missing. Along with Stalingrad, it marked a decisive moment in the Allied victory over the Reich.  Russians do not forget this kind of thing, especially when German weapons are part of the AFU’s arsenal. The thought of Ukrainian troops and tanks holding Kursk is another of the miscalculations that litter the story of this war since it began with the U.S.–inspired coup 10 years ago.    https://scheerpost.com/2024/08/22/patrick-lawrence-zelenskys-misadventures-in-kursk/

August 25, 2024 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A new French fairy tale: “Cheap” nuclear electricity in France is not what it appears.

The French public are paying for their nuclear addiction — and will pay even more when the plants need decommissioning. 

By Axel Mayer, 11 Sept 23,  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/09/11/a-new-french-fairy-tale/—

“Bread and games”(Panem et circenses) were the enforcement strategies in the Roman Empire to maintain power. “Cheap petrol, cheap electricity and football” are popular campaign strategies under a democracy, says Axel Mayer, Vice-President of the Trinational Nuclear Protection Association (TRAS).

In France, the nuclear industry is in decline and the nuclear company EDF is heavily in debt. At the same time, President Macron is once again promising cheap nuclear power and wants to have new small nuclear power plants built. A small part of the French nuclear industry’s financial problems is to be solved with EU money.

In this context, the fairy tale of cheap French nuclear power is happily spread in France and also in Germany and the use of nuclear energy is praised as the miracle weapon in the losing war against nature and the environment. However, the price of electricity in France is only apparently cheap.

According to a report of the supreme audit court in France, the research and development, as well as the construction of the French nuclear power plants, cost a total of 188 billion euros. Since in France the “civilian” and the military use of nuclear power cannot be separated, the sum is probably much higher. Retrofitting France’s outdated reactors will cost over 55 billion euros. Liberation magazine reports retrofitting costs of nearly 100 billion euros by 2030.

People of France are paying for expensive nuclear power with their taxes

According to a report by the French Ministry of Economy, the semi-state-owned EDF had debts of about 41 billion euros at the end of 2019, an amount that is expected to be nearly 57 billion euros by 2028. To avoid domestic political problems, EDF is not allowed to raise the price of electricity for political reasons. EDF liabilities are driving up France’s national debt massively. The people of France (and especially their grandchildren) are paying for the seemingly cheap, but in reality expensive nuclear power with their taxes.

This cost does not include the dismantling of the nuclear power plants or any costs of a severe accident. A serious nuclear accident would have devastating consequences in France. A government study estimates the cost at 430 billion euros.

Demolition costs of over 100 billion euros

In France, EDF operates 56 outdated reactors that are now becoming old and decrepit almost simultaneously, but the company has built up almost no reserves for decommissioning. In Germany, the government is very optimistic about a 47 billion euros cost for decommissioning and final storage. The decommissioning of the large number of French nuclear power plants could cost well over 100 billion euros as costs rise, if no savings are made on safety. There is a distinct possibility that the nuclear industry could bankrupt the French state even without a nuclear accident that could happen at any time.

A “European Pressurized Water Reactor” (EPR) has been under construction on France’s Atlantic coast in Flamanville since 2007. The flagship project was originally scheduled for completion in 2012 at a fixed price of 3.2 billion euros. Since then, the start of operation has been postponed again and again, and the Court of Auditors now puts the cost at over 19 billion euros. Whether the EPR can go online in 2024 is questionable. The model reactor will never work economically.

In countries with a functioning market, no new nuclear power plants are building

Swiss nuclear lobbyist and Axpo CEO Christoph Brand puts the kibosh on dreams of cheap nuclear power from new, small nuclear plants. “The production costs for the electricity supplied by new nuclear power plants are currently about twice as high as those of larger wind and solar plants,” Brand said. “No matter how one assesses the risks of nuclear power, it is simply not economical to rely on new nuclear plants,” he said in the pro-nuclear NZZ on Oct. 21, 2021.

In countries with a functioning market, no new nuclear power plants are being built. When in doubt, it always helps to look at EDF’s share price, which has fallen massively over the long term, to assess the market chances of the nuclear renaissance announced by President Macron.

“Bread and games” with artificially low nuclear electricity prices can work in election campaigns. Low-cost, risk-free electricity is generated today with photovoltaics and wind energy. (AM/hcn)

August 24, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics, Reference | Leave a comment

Putin says Ukrainian forces tried to strike Kursk nuclear plant

The Russian leader does not offer any evidence for his claim but says the UN nuclear watchdog has been alerted.

Aljazeera, 22 Aug 2024

Russian President Vladimir Putin says Ukrainian forces have tried to attack the Kursk Nuclear Power Station in an overnight raid.

The Russian leader did not offer evidence for the claim but said on Thursday that Moscow has informed the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), about the incident.

Ukraine has not responded to Russia’s allegations.

“The enemy tried to strike the nuclear power plant at night. The IAEA has been informed,” Putin said in a televised government meeting.

Putin made the claim as Ukrainian forces continued to fight inside Russia more than two weeks after launching an ambitious cross-border attack, which has become an embarrassing headache for Moscow.

While the strategic aims of Ukraine’s Kursk incursion remain uncertain, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday said the attack is part of an effort to bring the war to an end on terms amenable to Ukraine………………………….  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/22/putin-says-ukrainian-forces-tried-to-strike-kursk-nuclear-plant

August 24, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Sizewell C seeks permit for ‘water vole displacement activities’.

Sizewell C is seeking a permit to “undertake water vole displacement activities” on two rivers near the development.

Sizewell C seeks permit for ‘water vole displacement activities’.
Sizewell C is seeking a permit to “undertake water vole displacement
activities” on two rivers near the development.

 ENDS 21st Aug 2024

https://www.endsreport.com/article/1885703/sizewell-c-seeks-permit-water-vole-displacement-activities

August 24, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Report on nuclear power in Wales is so secret the UK Government won’t even disclose its name

21 Aug 2024, Martin Shipton, https://nation.cymru/news/report-on-nuclear-power-in-wales-is-so-secret-the-uk-government-wont-even-disclose-its-name/

A campaigner wanting to find out how power from a possible new nuclear power plant on Anglesey would be channelled into the national grid has been refused all information, including even the name of an official report on the matter.

Dr Jonathan Dean, a trustee of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, wrote to the UK Government’s Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), asking: “Please could I get a copy of the evaluation report where it was concluded that Wylfa on Ynys Môn should be selected as the next large nuclear site after Sizewell C.”

His request was rejected. He wrote back stating: ”I wondered if it would be possible to obtain a redacted copy of the report you mention. I have little interest in any commercial details. Ideally the whole report suitably redacted, but at least those sections dealing with the connection to the national grid; use of waste heat as per section 4.8 of national policy statement EN-1; location and area of land considered on Ynys Môn; and means of overcoming the many reasons given by the Planning Inspectorate in their recommendation to the Secretary of State in 2019/2020 to refuse the DCO [Development Consent Order] application made by Horizon Nuclear Power.

“Would it be possible to know the title and any reference number for this report to aid future requests?”

 Confidential information

He was then told: “The report has been withheld in full under regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and no part of the report is available for disclosure … [The] report does not have a reference number and the title of the report is confidential information.”

Later the Department said it had quoted the wrong section of the regulations as the reason for turning down Dr Dean’s request . The correct section was regulation 12(5)(e), which states: “(The) confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.”

Dr Dean told Nation.Cymru: “There have been tentative ideas to connect the transmission grid in north Wales to that in the south since at least 2009 that I am aware of. Then the idea was a subsea connection from Wylfa to Pembroke And back in 2012 NGET [National Grid Electricity Transmission] wanted to build a 400 kV transmission line to Lower Frankton from Cefn Coch to service mid Wales wind farms.

“The Offshore Transmission Network Review in 2020 again suggested a subsea connection linking Lancashire to Wylfa to Pembroke, taking in the new Irish Sea wind farms.

“The Holistic Network Design (HND) of 2022 changed things. It brought power subsea from Scotland into Pentir (Bangor) and took power from Pentir to Swansea North substation. Although heavily caveated as just indicating a network need, and not indicating technology or route, it was described as a ‘double circuit’ which could be interpreted as meaning pylons.

“In the ‘Beyond 2030’ report this year the ESO [Electricity System Operator] says that the subsea link into Pentir will be double the capacity (4 GW?) of that in the HND, but interestingly show the extra capacity connecting to Bodelwyddan not Pentir.

“Meanwhile NGET have planned a substation at Gwyddelwern, supposedly for north Wales wind farms, and Llandyfaelog for mid Wales wind farms.

“Last week, the Beyond 2030 Celtic Sea report revealed Llandyfaelog will be one of the landing points for the Celtic Sea wind farms, and that Swansea North substation has no free capacity or space to expand

“Pentir is constrained ‘behind’ both Eryri and the new north east Wales national park (currently Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). If all the capacity from Scotland came into Bodelwyddan and headed south from there, depending on the final limits of the new national park, there may be no obvious hard constraints to pylons.

“So what might be possible? The line could go down the vale of Clwyd, maybe via the new substation in Gwyddelwern, to Cefn Coch (previously desired substation site) then Newtown (132 kV link), Builth and down the Tywi to the new substation in Llandyfaelog.

“Vyrnwy Frankton wouldn’t be needed, Tywi Usk wouldn’t be needed, and with a bit of re-jigging, Teifi Tywi wouldn’t be needed. Technically it would be a far superior transmission solution (at least the correct transmission voltage!) with up to 6 GW capacity and meet the HND objectives of linking north to south Wales. It would likely be 50m pylons carrying 400 kV double circuits.

“If there wasn’t the desire to extract wind power from mid Wales, the alternative could be a HVDC [High Voltage Direct Current] ‘bootstrap’ from Pentir to Pembroke (as per 2009). The two double circuit lines out of Pembroke can carry 12 GW so can easily accept 6 GW from north Wales (4 GW of it from Scotland) and 3 GW from the Celtic Sea, while still having space for the 2 GW Pembroke power station which will, apparently, be converted to hydrogen and/or carbon capture.

“But this is just my feverish imagination. We will have to wait and see.”

Grid connection

Responding to the UK Government’s secrecy over the transmission link from Wylfa, Dr Dean said: “I have always had an interest in Wylfa as I brought my family to Ynys Môn in the 1960s. I remember going to one of the first public meetings about Wylfa B in 1976 to hear my father talk.

“When Hitachi were developing the last iteration of Wylfa B I was involved with the campaign to have the grid connection put underground or subsea. This campaign was supported by Albert Owen, Rhun ap Iorwerth and then Virginia Crosbie. However Hitachi refused to consider a subsea connection and National Grid refused to consider a buried connection

“The Hitachi proposal was ultimately recommended for refusal by the Planning Inspectorate for multiple reasons. Knowing the north Wales grid will be so constrained by 2030, due to the growth of renewables, so much so that pylons are required from Bangor to Swansea, I was shocked at the announcement of a GW scale station. I had expected a series of SMRs [Small Modular Reactors]. There will be no spare grid capacity in the whole of north Wales for nuclear.

“As trustee of CPRW I was concerned that a new line of pylons would be put through Eryri, against UK planning policy, as there is no way around the national park other than under the sea. The UK. planning policy for nuclear has never considered grid connections, so I assumed that the DESNZ report must have addressed this. A power station without a grid connection would just be an enormous white elephant

“I still don’t understand why such technical details should be withheld from the public, given there was a very clear announcement the power station would happen. The fact the report has a ‘secret’ title, and no reference number, makes me think it doesn’t actually exist! But I cannot believe governments announce new power stations based on no analysis or consideration. Surely not?

“All I want to know is, will it be a subsea cable or more pylons all the way to Connah’s Quay? I really don’t see the need for such secrecy.

August 24, 2024 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

‘Very serious’ nuclear situation could happen ‘at any moment’ in Ukraine, says IAEA chief

Cathy Newman, Presenter 4 News 20 Aug 24

We spoke to Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Cathy Newman: Let’s start with Zaporizhzhia, because earlier you said that safety was deteriorating there after this drone strike. How critical would you say it is?

Rafael Grossi: Well, we could have a very serious situation any moment. Because when you see the amount of military activity surrounding the plant………………………….The physical integrity of the facility is being challenged. So, this is why we say that what we see is a deterioration. The condition of the plant, I should say, is that it’s not producing energy at the moment, is in jargon what we call shut down. But there’s a lot of material there, a lot of nuclear material there. There’s a lot of spent fuel there. Fresh fuel. So, things that if impact could trigger the release of radioactivity.

Cathy Newman: So the risk has been minimised, but it hasn’t been removed, clearly. I mean, in theory, another Chernobyl is possible?

Rafael Grossi: ………………………………………… I would say, as I was just mentioning, you have all of this material around and you could have a situation theoretically where because of the loss of external power, which has occurred, we had nine episodes of complete blackouts of the plant. So no cooling function. So if you lose all that, you could eventually have a meltdown.

Cathy Newman: So it’s perilous, clearly. I wonder whether you think the risk of the Kursk plant, ……………. Russia is now fortifying around that plant. I mean, is that potentially more risky because it’s a much more volatile situation.

Rafael Grossi: It is certainly serious and we should take it very, very seriously. We are taking it, the agency at the IAEA, very, very seriously. This nuclear power plant is, I would say, within artillery range already. You have just informed that the incursion of the Ukrainian troops, is a few miles, a couple dozen kilometres into Russian territory and just a few miles, in kilometres is about between 20 and 30 km from the plant itself. And there is a technical aspect here. You were just mentioning Chernobyl. The reactors here, you have six reactors in Kursk. You have two reactors that are being decommissioned. You have two reactors that are operating. No shutdown, operating when you have hot reactors. Anything that could happen there could be maximised in this sense.

And then two other units being built. The two reactors that are operating are of a type called RBMK, which is exactly the type of reactors, an old model type of reactor was the one, like the ones that were in Chernobyl. These reactors have a particularity. Normally when you look at a nuclear reactor is a dome. There is a concrete and metal protection. These two reactors don’t have that, don’t have any of that. The core of these reactors is open. Is like, as if you were here and you could see the fuel elements there. So, God forbid, was there an impact on the plant, we could have a very serious situation…………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.channel4.com/news/very-serious-nuclear-situation-could-happen-at-any-moment-in-ukraine-says-iaea-chief

August 23, 2024 Posted by | Russia, safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Defence Correspondents: The Journalistic Wing of the Military?

There are stenographers – and then there are UK defence correspondents.

DECLASSIFIED UK, DES FREEDMAN, 19 August 2024

An analysis of broadcasters’ online coverage of defence spending and strategy since Keir Starmer won the election shows that reporting is virtually 100% in line with the government’s own priorities. 

Critical voices, where they are included, are entirely from the right.

All 20 articles posted under ‘defence’ since 4 July – 14 from Sky, 5 from the BBC and 1 from ITV – faithfully reproduce the government’s agenda. 

These include its proposals for a defence review, its promise to increase military spending to 2.5% of GDP, its commitment to Ukraine and NATO (described on the BBC by foreign secretary David Lammy as ‘part of Britain’s DNA’).

Its notion that there is a need to restore confidence in the military in order to face up to “rapidly increasing global threats” (as Sky quoted defence secretary John Healey) also features.

The only critical voices that appear are Conservative shadow ministers, hawkish think tank spokespeople and military ‘experts’, all speaking about how vital it is to boost defence spending, which currently stands at £64.6bn a year (2.32% of GDP).

Such spending is apparently necessary to confront what the army’s chief Sir Roland Walker has described as an “axis of upheaval” composed of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. 

Sky quoted Walker without comment on 23 July as saying that “there was an ‘urgent need’ for the British Army to rebuild its ability to deter future wars with credible fighting power”.

Churnalism

Much of the coverage feels like a press release from the Ministry of Defence, which is hardly surprising given that MoD statements are liberally incorporated – without challenge – into news reports.

For example, ITV News’ report of 16 July on Labour’s “root and branch” review of defence draws heavily on the MoD’s release earlier that day

Its only deviation from government spin is that it also quotes the shadow armed forces minister Andrew Bowie saying that “the country didn’t need another review, and instead ‘we just need to get on and spend more money on defence’.”

Both the BBC and Sky ran lengthy, gushing reports on the speeches given by the defence secretary and General Walker at the Royal United Services Institute’s ‘Land Warfare’ conference on 22/23 July, unambiguously pushing the line that increasing defence spending was crucial to securing peace.

None of these pieces featured comments about the huge political and economic risks of increasing defence spending and a possible acceleration, not reduction, of instability. 

Guns not butter

This isn’t just a matter of excluding voices from the left arguing for a completely different set of priorities. There isn’t even room for mainstream economists like Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, criticising the way recent governments have presented the proposed hike and making the obvious, if important, point that “[m]ore money for defence means less for everything else”…………………………………………………………………………………………..

‘Pre-war world’

The tone of recent coverage is, however, entirely in line with what has gone on before where news broadcasters have acted more as cheerleaders of the UK government’s strategic defence priorities than impartial journalists.

For example, following a widely reported speech in January by then defence secretary Grant Shapps, committing the UK to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, Sky News launched a series called “Prepared for War?” in April. 

This examined whether the UK was ready for the “possibility of armed conflict” and was based on interviews with defence specialists, former military officers and academics, all of whom were singing to the same pro-war hymn sheet. 

It reported on the emergence of a “national defence plan” to deal with “mounting concerns about Russia, China and Iran” and uncritically embraced the idea that we are now in a “pre-war world”.

This has all the trappings of a drive to war.

Seduced

Broadcasters’ favourite defence-related stories appear to be ones where they can show dazzling images of the latest military hardware. 

As Richard Norton-Taylor, former defence correspondent for the Guardian and now contributor to Declassified UK, has noted: “The MoD knows how to seduce journalists, especially those writing for specialist defence publications – often used as primary sources by mainstream journalists – by showing off new weapons.”

So in January, Sky News ran a puff piece on a new laser system, DragonFire, developed by the MoD to the tune of around £100m, that spoke of its “pinpoint accuracy” taken straight from the MoD’s own press release. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

As always, an uncritical embrace of the UK’s strategic geopolitical interests comes before any commitment to transparency and even to exploring the claim that increasing military spending might not be the best way of de-escalating rising tensions across the globe.

How do we account for this deference on the part of defence correspondents? 

Declassified UK has run several stories examining this question and revealing the preferential treatment of favoured journalists, sanctions against those who ask tough questions, the close contacts between correspondents and defence and security-related officials and indeed the existence of a revolving door between journalism and military PR. 

When it comes to reporting on defence and security, ‘[d]eference, as much as secrecy, remains the English disease’, notes Norton-Taylor.

Indeed, all too often, it’s not a specific strategy so much as ideological congruence between the defence establishment and defence journalists about what is understood to be protecting the “national interest”.

That means that while the UK ramps up its support for Ukraine and continues to stand by Israel in defending it from possible attacks from Iran, British broadcast journalists are operating effectively as part of a coordinated effort to boost defence spending. 

Their silence on stories such as the training of Israeli troops inside the UK or the number of UK military flights from Cyprus to Israel is just as troubling as their more visible and uncritical amplification of successive UK governments’ defence priorities.

This isn’t journalism but public relations  https://www.declassifieduk.org/defence-correspondents-the-journalistic-wing-of-the-military/

August 23, 2024 Posted by | media, UK | Leave a comment

Ukraine could trigger ‘another Chernobyl’ – ex-US Army officer.

A meltdown at the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant would make the region uninhabitable, Stanislav Krapivnik has warned

 https://www.rt.com/russia/602744-ukraine-may-trigger-another-chernobyl/ 21 Aug 24

Ukraine’s armed forces could cause a nuclear disaster that would affect most of Europe if they strike the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, former US Army officer Stanislav Krapivnik has warned.

In an interview with RT on Saturday, Krapivnik discussed the difference between a dirty bomb and a nuclear bomb, explaining that while a dirty bomb does not have the critical mass or enriched material, it could cause large scale contamination if it hits nuclear waste. 

If the coolant system in an active plant is targeted, it would cause a “nuclear meltdown” which could lead to an incident similar to Fukushima or Chernobyl, he added. Such an event would impact most of Europe, especially at this time of the year “when the wind blows northwest.”

Krapivnik predicted that “if there is enough evidence” of the threat, it would “force a very large reaction” from the Russian government, as a meltdown at the Kursk plant would make the region uninhabitable.

“And the fallout is going to go straight to the northwest into Europe,” he said, adding: “It’s going to hit the Poles, the Germans, the Danes, the Scandinavian countries,” right into the UK. “But apparently the leadership of those nations really doesn’t give a damn.”

On Friday, Russian military journalist Marat Khairullin reported, citing sources, that Kiev is preparing to detonate a dirty atomic bomb targeting nuclear waste at either Russia’s Zaporozhye NPP or the Kursk NPP.

While the nuclear plant in Zaporozhye, the largest such facility in Europe, has been shut down, the plant in Kursk Region is operational.

The Russian Defense Ministry responded to the reports by saying that any attempts to create a “man-made disaster in the European part of the continent” would be met with “tough military and military-technical countermeasures.” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called on the international community “to immediately condemn the provocative actions prepared by the Kiev regime.”

Kiev has denied the allegations. Neither the UN nor the International Atomic Energy Agency have addressed the threat.

August 23, 2024 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »