nuclear-news

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

Why the EU could be the biggest loser from the Ukraine conflict


SOTT, Fyodor Lukyanov, RTSat, 09 Mar 2024 , https://www.sott.net/article/489640-Fyodor-Lukyanov-Why-the-EU-could-be-the-biggest-loser-from-the-Ukraine-conflict

As alarms bells ring in the West, Emmanuel Macron’s talk of NATO troops in Ukraine reflects a fear of failure

French President Emmanuel Macron has acknowledged that the Fifth Republic will not send its troops to Ukraine in the near future. Earlier, he had stated that Western leaders had discussed the issue but failed to reach an agreement.

The evolution of the Ukraine crisis has had paradoxical consequences. Two years since the most acute phase began, Western Europe has found itself at the spearhead of the confrontation. Not only in terms of the costs it has incurred – which have been discussed from the very beginning. Now the possibility of a military conflict with Russia is being raised much more loudly in the Old World than on the other side of the Atlantic, and France is the instigator. Macron’s statement on the possibility of sending NATO troops into the war zone seemed spontaneous to many. But a week later, Paris insisted it was deliberate and well thought-out.

…………………………………………It seems that previously the constant incantation was to prevent NATO from being drawn into a direct, nuclear conflict with Russia. And now, suddenly, Paris is talking about “strategic ambiguity,” about a cunning game to confuse Russian President Vladimir Putin and make him afraid to take decisions because of possible irreversible consequences. Let him be afraid of the next steps, not us.

This is not yet being repeated in other major capitals, but a group of countries ready to cross swords with Moscow is beginning to take shape.………………………………

Western European ambiguity is likely to mean stepping up the substantial military assistance to Ukraine without announcing it, but also without hiding the growing signs. The risks are considerable because there is no reason to believe that Russia would somehow refrain from responding if it saw reason to do so.

The fear of Russia is not new in Western Europe, and is in its own way historically very sincere, so we should not write it off. All the more so because, after the Cold War, Europe collectively believed we could forget the previous problems with a clear conscience. But here we are again.

However, we dare to suggest that the current Western European reaction and the escalation of the Russian threat are also linked to another factor: the realisation that it is the EU that could be the main loser in the ongoing conflict. The gap between the demands of the population and the priorities of the political class is widening, according to opinion polls. Added to that, it’s unclear what to expect from the senior partner over in Washington. It turns out that ambiguity is everywhere, and there is nothing left but to make it the core of one’s policy. And insist on it.

On the eve of the Russian presidential election, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov invited EU ambassadors to a meeting, but they refused. 

Comment: It appears as if Europe hasn’t learned important lessons of history which seriously puts us all in danger. It is clear though that the European leaders are making these decisions without consulting the people in their countries who are more interested in the domestic problems within EU. As always, war and/or the fear of war in a climate of engineered hysteria works wonders in distracting people towards an enemy ‘out there’ and thus protecting the real enemy ‘inside’.

See also:

March 11, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point Responds to Environmental Concerns Over Bristol Channel Eel Populations

Hinkley Point addresses SEG’s concerns on eel populations in the Bristol Channel, proposing solutions for environmental conservation amidst development.

BNN, Nitish Verma, 05 Mar 2024

In a recent development, Hinkley Point has addressed concerns voiced by the Sustainable Eel Group (SEG) regarding the nuclear plant’s impact on eel populations in the Bristol Channel. The SEG, a prominent organization dedicated to the conservation of the European eel, has expressed reservations about supporting the Hinkley Point C development without significant changes to protect these migratory fish, especially the critically endangered European eel.

Environmental Alarms and Hinkley’s Rebuttals

The Bristol Channel is home to the most substantial population of migrating eels in the British Isles, with recent surveys suggesting an annual arrival of 75 million tonnes of glass eels. This has raised alarms about the potential threats posed by the Hinkley Point C development to this vital migratory route. The area’s designation as a RAMSAR reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest underscores its global ecological importance. Chris Fayers, head of environment at Hinkley Point C, countered these concerns by highlighting extensive research conducted by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), which suggests a minimal impact on fish populations, including eels. Furthermore, joint studies by the Universities of Bristol and Exeter have been cited to address risks related to noise pollution, a factor previously thought to significantly harm eel populations.

Proposed Solutions and SEG’s Stance

In response to the SEG’s concerns, Hinkley Point C has proposed the creation of a new salt marsh and the implementation of fish passes designed to be ‘eel friendly’ and benefit the overall eel population. These measures aim to mitigate the environmental impact of the nuclear plant’s operations on the local ecosystem. However, the SEG remains cautious, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence and effective implementation of these measures before lending their support to the development. The group’s focus on ensuring the survival and recovery of the European eel underscores the critical nature of this issue.

Looking Ahead: Conservation and Development Balance

The debate surrounding Hinkley Point C’s impact on eel populations in the Bristol Channel highlights the broader challenge of balancing infrastructure development with environmental conservation. As the largest and most high-profile NGO focusing on the recovery of the European eel, the SEG’s concerns carry significant weight. The outcome of this situation could set important precedents for how large-scale projects address and mitigate their environmental impacts. With both sides presenting arguments and potential solutions, the ongoing dialogue between Hinkley Point C and environmental groups will be crucial in determining the future of the Bristol Channel’s eel populations.  https://bnnbreaking.com/world/uk/hinkley-point-responds-to-environmental-concerns-over-bristol-channel-eel-populations

March 10, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Anglesey nuclear power plant plan resurrected almost four years after being shelved due to costs

This Is Money, By JOHN ABIONA , 7 March 2024 

Plans for a nuclear power plant in North Wales look set to be revived almost four years after the project was shelved.

Jeremy Hunt said the Government has bought the Wylfa site on Anglesey and a second at Oldbury-on-Severn in south Gloucestershire from Hitachi for £160million.

The Japanese firm walked away from building the plant at Wylfa in September 2020 having suspended the project the year before due to rising costs.

But yesterday the Chancellor, who referred to the island by its Welsh-language and constituency name, said: ‘Ynys Mon has a vital role in developing our nuclear ambitions.’

Ministers are also pressing ahead with plans for small modular reactors (SMRs) with six companies including Rolls-Royce bidding to win the contract.

These will complement Somerset’s Hinkley Point C and Suffolk’s Sizewell C nuclear power stations…………………………………………….more https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-13165945/Anglesey-nuclear-power-plant-plan-resurrected-four-years-shelved.html

March 10, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Russia and China announce plan to build shared nuclear reactor on the moon by 2035, ‘without humans’

Live Science, By Harry Baker, 8 Mar 24

The proposed nuclear reactor, which could be transported and assembled without human assistance, would provide energy to a lunar base that Russia and China have agreed to build together.

Russia’s space agency Roscosmos has announced plans to work with China to build an automated nuclear reactor on the moon by 2035. The proposed reactor will help power a proposed lunar base that the two countries will jointly operate.  

Back in 2021, Roscosmos and the China National Space Administration (CNSA) revealed that they intended to build a shared base on the moon, named the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), which they claimed at the time would be “open to all interested countries and international partners.” 

However, NASA astronauts are unlikely to be allowed to visit this base due to historically frosty relations with CNSA and a more recent split with Roscosmos, which will leave the International Space Station by 2025 in response to sanctions from the U.S. over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

On Tuesday (March 5), Roscosmos announced that it will eventually attempt to build a nuclear reactor alongside CNSA, which would theoretically be able to power the ILRS. 

“Today we are seriously considering a project — somewhere at the turn of 2033-2035 — to deliver and install a power unit on the lunar surface together with our Chinese colleagues,” Roscosmos director general Yury Borisov told state-owned Russian news site TASS.

Borisov added that the challenging construction job would likely be carried out autonomously “without the presence of humans” and that the necessary technological solutions to pull it off are “almost ready.” 

Roscosmos is also looking to use massive nuclear-powered rockets to transfer cargo to the moon to build this base, but the agency has not yet figured out how to build these spacecraft safely, Reuters reported……………………………………..

Roscosmos and CNSA, neither of which have put humans on the moon’s surface, have contrasting track records when it comes to recent lunar exploration.

Last year, Russia’s first moon mission in 47 years ended in disaster when the Luna-25 lander crashed into the lunar surface, leaving behind a 33-foot (10 meter) wide crater. 

However, China has had a presence on the moon since 2013, when the Chang’e 3 mission put a lander and rover on the lunar surface. The subsequent Chang’e 4 and Chang’e 5 missions, which occurred in 2019 and 2020 respectively, also successfully landed spacecraft on the moon. The most recent mission also successfully returned lunar samples to Earth — a feat that CNSA will attempt to repeat later this year.

Last week, CNSA also announced that it will start launching giant reusable rockets over the next two years as part of the agency’s plan to put boots on the moon by 2030.

However, NASA is still on track to return humans to the lunar surface before then, despite the first crewed Artemis mission being delayed until 2026.  https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/russia-and-china-announce-plan-to-build-shared-nuclear-reactor-on-the-moon-by-2035-without-humans

March 9, 2024 Posted by | China, Russia, space travel | Leave a comment

Was Victoria Nuland Fired for Her Role In the Ukraine Debacle?

UNZ Review, MIKE WHITNEY • MARCH 6, 2024

Victoria Nuland’s retirement is an admission that Washington’s premier foreign policy project has failed. No government official is more identified with the Ukraine fiasco than Nuland. She was on the ground micro-managing activities during the 2014 coup, and has overseen the State Department’s sordid involvement since the war began. Her career-path is inextricably linked to the ill-fated NATO-backed disaster which has resulted in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian regulars and the obliteration of much of the country. Thus, the question we need to ask ourselves is whether Nuland’s persistent machinations to drag NATO into an unwinnable war with Russia is the reason she ‘got the axe’, er, announced her retirement? Here’s an excerpt from the official State Department Press Statement:

But it’s Toria’s (Nuland) leadership on Ukraine that diplomats and students of foreign policy will study for years to come. Her efforts have been indispensable to confronting Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and marshaling a global coalition to ensure his strategic failure, and helping Ukraine work toward the day when it will be able to stand strongly on its own feet – democratically, economically, and militarily. On the Retirement of Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, US State Department,

This is an extraordinary paragraph that places the blame for the Ukrainian debacle squarely on Nuland’s shoulders. Yes, she was “indispensable” in leading the drive to confront Putin just as she played a critical role in “marshaling a global coalition” to prosecute a proxy war on Russia. And, what this statement tells us is that Nuland was one of the main architects of the ongoing conflict, which means she is largely responsible for the widening chasm between the NATO leaders, the mounting carnage on the battlefield, and America’s strategic defeat to its primary geopolitical rival, Russia. In short, no other government official is more responsible for the Ukrainian quagmire than Victoria Nuland.

Also, Nuland leaves behind a gargantuan catastrophe for which there is no apparent remedy and no easy way out. We cannot expect the Biden administration to simply ‘cut and run’ in what is perceived to be a direct confrontation with Moscow. Biden will undoubtedly press-ahead as a face-saving gesture regardless of the costs, further straining relations with the allies while handing-over large chunks of east Ukraine to the Russian army. This is clearly a no-win situation for Washington which is why (we think) Nuland –who created this mess– got her ‘Pink Slip’. ……………………………………………….

Victoria Nuland is one of the most knowledgeable and experienced diplomats in the entire State Department, but –even so– they are throwing her under the bus during a time of extreme crisis because she failed in the biggest and most important assignment of her 35-year career. Isn’t that what they’re saying?

It is. You can be 100% certain that a combative street-fighter like Nuland would never throw in the towel unless she was explicitly ordered to leave. And, perhaps, she might have held-on to her job if there was any sign of progress in the war, but there isn’t any sign of progress. It’s as hopeless and dire a situation as we have ever seen. Even as we speak– the Ukrainian front lines are collapsing while the body count continues to rise. Ukraine is out-gunned, out-manned, and out-led. It’s a total mismatch and has been ever since Putin called up the reserves over a year ago. Young men are presently being slaughtered in droves and left to rot in mud-filled trenches that stink of gunpowder and death. All of this suggests that the end is near. And if the end is near, then someone will have to be blamed. Enter Nuland with a bullseye affixed to her back.

Nuland deserves whatever she gets. As a diehard Warhawk she has always played fast-and-loose with the facts building the case for war on half-truths and outright fabrications, all with the intention of plunging the country into another pointless bloodletting that would inevitably end in another humiliating defeat…………………………………………………

Nuland and her former colleagues, John Brennan and Hillary Clinton, have had a poisonous effect on our politics, elevating Russophobia to a state religion while dragging the nation’s reputation through the mud at every turn…………………………………

In any event, we think that Nuland’s retirement is anything but voluntary. We think that she’s being terminated by foreign policy elites who no longer believe in her blustery rhetoric and empty promises of beating Putin. By removing Nuland they are acknowledging that the proxy-war has failed and that a different strategy is needed. And while we don’t yet know what that policy-change will entail, we do know that Nuland won’t be involved in its implementation.

……………………………………………..  Ukraine’s chances of success are extremely poor unless they get more money, more troops and more firepower, all of which are now seriously in doubt…………………..the State Department has not convened any back-channel negotiations with Russia, so there’s no possibility of a surprise settlement either. And, now Nuland is telling them that neither she nor her colleagues have formulated a back-up plan in the event the war doesn’t turn out as they had anticipated. No Plan B.

……………………….Regrettably, we don’t think that ‘changing the messenger’ necessarily means a fundamental rethinking of the policy. Even so, it is a step in the right direction. As America’s ‘air of invincibility’ continues to erode, and its moral authority collapses (Gaza), Washington will be forced to pull in its horns and ‘play nice’ with its neighbors. That day is fast approaching.

Finally, no matter how you look at it, dumping Nuland is a positive development. Savor the moment. https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/was-nuland-fired-for-her-role-in-the-ukraine-debacle/

March 9, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | 3 Comments

Russia says it is considering putting a nuclear power plant on the moon with China

Reuters, March 6, 2024,  https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/russia-china-are-considering-putting-nuclear-power-unit-moon-ria-2024-03-05/

MOSCOW, March 5 (Reuters) – Russia and China are considering putting a nuclear power plant on the moon from 2033-35, Yuri Borisov, the head of Russia’s space agency Roscosmos said on Tuesday, something he said could one day allow lunar settlements to be built.

Borisov, a former deputy defence minister, said that Russia and China had been jointly working on a lunar programme and that Moscow was able to contribute with its expertise on “nuclear space energy”.

“Today we are seriously considering a project – somewhere at the turn of 2033-2035 – to deliver and install a power unit on the lunar surface together with our Chinese colleagues,” Borisov said.

Solar panels would not be able to provide enough electricity to power future lunar settlements, he said, while nuclear power could.

“This is a very serious challenge…it should be done in automatic mode, without the presence of humans,” he said of the possible plan.

Borisov spoke also of Russian plans to build a nuclear-powered cargo spaceship. He said all the technical questions concerning the project had been solved apart from finding a solution on how to cool the nuclear reactor.

“We are indeed working on a space tugboat. This huge, cyclopean structure that would be able, thanks to a nuclear reactor and a high-power turbines…to transport large cargoes from one orbit to another, collect space debris and engage in many other applications,” Borisov said.

Russian officials have spoken before of ambitious plans to one day mine on the Moon, but the Russian space programme has suffered a series of setbacks in recent years.

Its first moon mission in 47 years failed last year after Russia’s Luna-25 spacecraft spun out of control and crashed.

Moscow has said it will launch further lunar missions and then explore the possibility of a joint Russian-China crewed mission and even a lunar base.

March 8, 2024 Posted by | Russia, space travel | Leave a comment

Nuclear: the bill for EDF’s future EPR2 reactors is already skyrocketing


EDF has significantly increased the cost of its program to build six new
EPR2 nuclear reactors, the newspaper Les Echos reported on Monday, citing
new estimates from the company. According to Les Echos, EDF now
estimates the cost of its program to build six new EPR2 nuclear reactors at
67.4 billion euros, compared to 51.7 billion euros in an estimate made
public at the start of 2022, an amount expected to be subject to regular
updates. That’s a jump of 30%.

 La Tribune 4th March 2024

https://www.latribune.fr/climat/energie-environnement/nucleaire-la-facture-des-futurs-reacteurs-epr2-d-edf-grimpe-deja-en-fleche-992108.html

 Le Figaro 4th March 2024

https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/le-cout-du-nouveau-nucleaire-francais-s-envole-20240304

March 8, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

The West’s over-involvement in Ukraine

at the same summit those present joined to support sending long-range missiles to the Ukrainians, weapons fully capable of reaching cities, power grids, industrial plants and other targets deep inside Russia. So: No troops, plenty of offensive hardware.

Scholz confirmed what everyone already knows, that NATO officers and trained personnel are in Ukraine operating weapons such as the Patriot and NASAM air defense system, the HIMARS multiple launch rocket system, the British–French Storm Shadow cruise missile (SCALP–EG in France), and many other complex weapons provided to Ukraine.”

Consortium News, PATRICK LAWRENCE: The Russians in Ukraine, March 6, 2024

Recent disclosures provide an incomplete inventory of the West’s covert activities in Ukraine. There is more than we have been told, surely.

You may have read or heard about the freakout that ensued after Emmanuel Macron convened a summit of European leaders in Paris last week. At a press briefing afterward, the French president allowed that NATO may at some point send troops to Ukraine to join the fight against Russian military forces.   

The Paris gathering precipitated a significant moment of truth, if we can call it such. Scholz, who is on a knife’s edge politically in part for his government’s support for Ukraine, immediately asserted that Germany would not send its Taurus long-range missiles to Ukraine because German troops would have to go with them, as the Ukrainians could not operate them on their own. 

Look at the British, Scholz added indelicately. When they send their Storm Shadow missiles (and I must say I love the names the West’s arsenal minders come up with for these things) British personnel have to go with them. 

Yikes! Such indiscretion.    

As Stephen Bryen reported in his Weapons and Strategy newsletter, “The British cried foul and accused Scholz of ‘flagrant abuse of intelligence.’” Abuse of intelligence is a new one on me, but never mind. Bryen, who follows these matters closely as a former Defense Department official, continued:

“Scholz confirmed what everyone already knows, that NATO officers and trained personnel are in Ukraine operating weapons such as the Patriot and NASAM air defense system, the HIMARS multiple launch rocket system, the British–French Storm Shadow cruise missile (SCALP–EG in France), and many other complex weapons provided to Ukraine.”

There we have it — or there we have had it, if covertly, for a long time. 

Before I go further, let me suggest a couple of thoughts readers can tuck somewhere in the corners of their minds for later consideration.

One, Russia’s intervention in Ukraine two years ago last month was unprovoked. Two, all the Kremlin’s talk about the threat of NATO hard by its southwestern border is nothing more than the distortion and paranoia of “Putin’s Russia,” as we must now refer to the Russian Federation.  

It went this way in Paris last week. At the presser following the summit Macron was asked whether Ukraine’s Western backers were considering deploying troops in Ukraine. The French president replied that while European leaders had not reached any kind of agreement, the idea was certainly on the table when they gathered at Elysée Palace. 

And then this:

“Nothing should be ruled out. We will do anything we can to prevent Russia from winning this war.” 

Instantly came the vigorous objections. The Brits, the Spanish, the Italians, the Poles, the Slovakians, the Hungarians: They all said in so many words, “No way.” Even Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s war-mongering sec-gen, objected to Macron’s assertion. 

No one was more vehement on this point than Olaf Scholz. “What was agreed among ourselves and with each other from the very beginning also applies to the future,” saith the German chancellor, “namely that there will be no ground troops, no soldiers on Ukrainian soil sent there by European countries or NATO states.” 

Plenty of Offensive Hardware

O.K., but at the same summit those present joined to support sending long-range missiles to the Ukrainians, weapons fully capable of reaching cities, power grids, industrial plants and other targets deep inside Russia. So: No troops, plenty of offensive hardware.

Last week The New York Times published a long takeout on the Central Intelligence Agency’s presence and programs in Ukraine, which extend back at least a decade and almost certainly much further……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 “If NATO is so much against sending troops to Ukraine,” he asks, “why doesn’t NATO demand that the soldiers already there be sent home?”

Over-Invested in the Conflict 

Excellent question. My answer: The Western powers, radically over-invested in Ukraine’s confrontation with Russia, are panicking as the Armed Forces of Ukraine retreat in the face of Russian advances and as support for this folly wanes on both sides of the Atlantic.

If anything, the covert presence of Western personnel in Ukraine may increase.    

It is obvious that Ukraine is losing its war against Russia, and at a faster pace than most analysts seem to have anticipated even last autumn. I am reading reports now that the final collapse of the AFU may prove three or so months away.  …………………………………………………………………….

 The Ukraine crisis is merely the latest phase of the West’s long campaign to surround the Russian Federation up to its borders, destabilize it and finally subvert it. Regime change in Moscow was and remains the final objective.   

This is not a war in defense of “Ukrainian democracy” — a phrase that causes one either to laugh or do the other thing. It is the West’s proxy war, start to finish, Ukrainians cynically cast as cannon fodder, expendable stooges. 

Russia had no choice when it intervened two years ago, this after eight years’ patience as the Europeans — Germany and France, this is to say — broke every promise they made by way of supporting a settlement. The Americans didn’t break any promises because they never made any — and no one would take them seriously if they had.

I come to the judgment I offered when the war that began in 2014 erupted into open conflict two years ago. The Russian intervention was regrettable but necessary. I took some stick for this view back in 2022. I learn lately it is recorded in some European intelligence files as if it were a major transgression. 

It is as true now as then. All we learn in drips and drops about the Western powers’ various covert doings in the sad, failed state they have done much to ruin, confirms this.
 https://consortiumnews.com/2024/03/06/patrick-lawrence-the-russians-in-ukraine/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c61faf77-5689-491d-afa5-bc607e7454cf

March 7, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Most Ukraine aid ‘goes right back’ to US – Nuland

 https://www.rt.com/news/593111-nuland-us-aid-ukraine/–– 25 Feb 24

The money that Washington allocates for Kiev supports jobs in America, the high-ranking State Department official has said.

Washington spends most of the money allocated as aid for Ukraine on weapons production at home, Acting US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said in an interview with CNN this week.

Commenting on the pending aid package which Congress failed to approve before going on winter recess, Nuland said she has “strong confidence” that it will pass, as it addresses America’s own interests.

“We have to remember that the bulk of this money is going right back into the US economy, to make weapons, including good-paying jobs in some forty states across the US,” she stated, adding that support for Ukraine in America “is still strong.”

Lawmakers in the House of Representatives blocked a bill requested by US President Joe Biden for an aid package for Kiev worth $60 billion, most of which is earmarked for weapons, earlier this month. They are expected to restart discussions on the package after they reconvene on February 28.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also recently said that roughly 90% of the financial assistance for Ukraine is spent on domestic production of weapons and equipment. At a press conference on December 20, he said additional tranches would “benefit American business, local communities, and strengthen the US defense industrial base.”

According to Germany’s Kiel Institute, which tracks international support for Kiev, Washington allocated nearly €68 billion ($73.7 billion) in aid for Ukraine between January 24, 2022 and January 15, 2024, including roughly €43 billion ($46.6 billion) in military aid.

However, Kiev has been increasingly demanding more aid from its Western backers. Several days ago, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky warned visiting American legislators that Kiev would “lose the war” against Russia without Washington’s assistance, according to US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Russia has criticized the US and other Western states for their military support for Kiev, arguing that it is only dragging out the conflict.

According to a recent survey from the Harris Poll and the Quincy Institute, a growing number of Americans do not support US military aid to Kiev unless it is tied to peace talks. Only 22% of respondents said Washington should continue ‘unconditionally’ providing Ukraine with financial assistance, while 48% said new funding must be conditioned on progress toward a diplomatic solution. Around 30% said the US should halt all aid.

March 7, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK Labour versus Green

What’s the Choice between Labour and the Green Party on energy?

Set against the Government’s ever-incredibly shrinking net zero commitments, Labour’s own shrinking net zero commitments in its ‘Green Prosperity Plan’ still look substantially better. But is this a difference big enough for environmentally conscious people to vote Labour? Or is Labour abandoning the climate struggle so much that people should go for the Green Party instead?

These are troubling questions for Labour supporters who put climate policy at the top of their to-do lists. Most troubling is the fact that Labour’s programme seems to ignore the benefit of converting the nation away from using natural gas and towards use of heat pumps…………………………………………………………………………………..

Then there is the clean power plan. This is supposed to have all electricity generated from non-fossil fuels by 2030………………………………………………………….

Nuclear black hole

Indeed, Labour may end up pouring a lot of the money intended for other types of green energy down the black hole that will open as the Government seriously starts the Sizewell C project. That project will be a terrible public spending/consumer bill disaster compared even to Hinkley C. This is because unlike Hinkley C the construction cost overruns will be borne by the UK Government and the UK energy consumers, and not by EDF. Sizewell C may not come online until after 2050. This new nuclear would in practice, anyway, make little difference to the need to balance fluctuating renewable energy supplies. Labour’s proposals mention small modular reactors (SMRs), a fantasy concept that is getting nowhere across the planet. If nuclear reactors were best small, they would not have become bigger! More wasted money!

Green Party and extra spending

The Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW), by contrast, is promising an extensive programme of green energy investment. They will say more in the forthcoming manifesto. 

However, in March 2023 they called for £37 billion annual spend to pay for insulation, plus a range of support measures for different types of renewable energy and replacing gas boilers with heat pumps.

True, much of it would rely on borrowing money. However, a significant portion of the funding is based on a promise to raise a new wealth tax as well as the promise held out by Labour for more windfall taxes on oil and gas. In addition, the Green Party has called for carbon taxes to fund measures, the carbon taxes to be levied on ‘the biggest polluters’. Avoiding spending money on nuclear power (which the Green Party opposes) will release a lot of funds for green energy compared to Labour………………………………………………………………….

Public Ownership

The Green Party also supports a lot more public ownership of energy compared to Labour. I certainly support the nationalisation of the domestic energy supply sector. This will cost very little for the state to buy – arguably nothing since the consumer will no longer have to pay bail-outs for bankrupt suppliers. It has always been a nonsense to say that this retail supply market is competitive……………………………………………… more https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/labour-versus-green

March 7, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Greenpeace warns on danger of restarting Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant 

Greenpeace today warned that any plans by Russia to restart reactors at
the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant would be a further step closer to a
potential nuclear disaster and must be stopped.

The environmental organization has restated its demand for the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) Director General to state clearly to Rosatom, the Russian
state nuclear corporation, that restart of any of the reactors cannot be
permitted.

The IAEA Director General is traveling to Moscow for meetings
with Rosatom Director General Alexey Likhachev. On 4th March, the second
anniversary of the Russian attack on the Zaporizhzhia plant, Greenpeace,
together with the deputy head of the regional administration, held a press
conference in Zaporizhzhia city. The focus of the event was the
Zaporozhzhia nuclear plant crisis, including the reactor restart threats
and nuclear emergency planning.

 Greenpeace 5th March 2024

https://www.greenreconstruction.com/news/second-anniversary-of-russias-nuclear-plant-attack-in-ukraine

March 7, 2024 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Improvement notice served over storage of hazardous materials at Dounreay

 By Alan Hendry – alan.hendry@hnmedia.co.uk, 4 Mar 24,  https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/improvement-notice-served-over-storage-of-hazardous-material-344039/

An improvement notice has been served over shortfalls in arrangements for storing alkali metals at Dounreay.

Buildings used to store these metals, predominantly sodium, were leaking in rainwater – with pools observed where the containers were being kept.

The notice was served by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) on Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS), formerly Magnox Ltd.

ONR inspectors judged that the prolonged period of exposure to moist and damp conditions was resulting in degradation of the barriers for safe storage of the chemicals.

Although no-one was harmed as a result of these shortfalls, and there were no radiological consequences, ONR concluded that there was potential for serious personal injury if workers had been exposed to the hazardous materials.

March 7, 2024 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Out of the unfiltered mouths of US political leaders enabling the destruction of Ukraine.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 4 Mar 24

“Four months into this thing, I like the structural path we’re on here. As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person. The best money we’ve ever spent.” Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC)

“It is a relatively modest amount that we are contributing without being asked to risk life and limb. The Ukrainians are willing to fight the fight for us if the West will give them the provisions. It’s a pretty good deal.” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)

“I call that a bargain.” ND Republican Governor Doug Burgum referring to US war funding damaging Russian military without mentioning catastrophic Ukrainian military damage.

These people are not humane political leaders…they are moral monsters.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL

March 5, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

‘It’ll be a shortlist of one!’ Villagers in England fear nuclear dump proposal

Plans for a new wave of atomic power have not factored in local concerns over the safety of the waste sites the schemes entail.

Alex Lawson, Sun 3 Mar 2024 , https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/03/itll-be-a-shortlist-of-one-villagers-in-england-fear-nuclear-dump-proposal

When Ian Harrison returned to the Lincolnshire coast to care for his parents a decade ago, he didn’t expect to spend his own retirement fighting plans to dig a £50bn nuclear waste dump near the beaches of his childhood.

Harrison, 67, lives a mile from the village of Theddlethorpe, one of three sites in England being examined for a possible geological disposal facility (GDF) to handle decades of nuclear waste from the power and defence industries. The cavernous dump will feature a series of tunnels and vaults dug 200-1,000 metres underground, capable of holding high-risk nuclear waste.

“It’s just a terrible idea to put a nuclear dump next to a seaside resort,” says Harrison, a retired warrant officer. “The safety concerns are real – look at Chernobyl – but people are more worried about the tourism that comes to Mablethorpe and the impact on local businesses.”Map showing proposed and withdrawn sites for GDFs

After several sites fell out of contention, the former gas terminal in Lincolnshire is one of just three which remain, with two on the Cumbrian coast – Mid Copeland and South Copeland. There is speculation about another site on the north-west coast.

The search for a home for Britain’s nuclear waste underlines a problem at the heart of its energy ambitions. Politicians have extolled the virtues of low-carbon nuclear power, but little attention has been given to the question of where to put the resulting waste.

Allerdale in Cumbria was ruled out last September after the government body behind the GDF project, Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), said there was “only a limited volume of suitable rock”, meaning it was not safe for storage. Last month, councillors in East Yorkshire withdrew from a process to consider hosting a GDF at South Holderness, east of Hull. In 2021, a council leader in Hartlepool resigned in a similar GDF row.

“At South Holderness, the local population complained and the council listened and stopped it,” says Harrison. “Here, people are worried, but they are sugarcoating it and not taking into account local concerns. Eventually, this will end up with a shortlist of one: us.”

The GDF is forecast to cost between £20bn and £53bn. Work on the project could take decades to begin, and high-risk waste will not enter it until at least 2075. The cost will be met by taxpayers, the existing nuclear plants’ operator EDF, and future power station operators.

Work on the GDF is expected to 4,000 jobs in its first 25 years. It is not an unprecedented move – Finland is nearing completion of a 450-metre-deep cavern to store its waste. France, Canada, Switzerland and Sweden are making progress on similar projects.

Britain’s nuclear waste is largely generated by its ageing power stations, as well as by industrial and defence sectors. It is housed in more than 20 ground-level sites which can hold the waste for up to 100 years, meaning a permanent store needs to be found. Even more waste is expected to be generated from a new era of reactors, despite lengthy delays,starting with Hinkley Point C in Somerset, currently the only new UK station under construction.

The handling of nuclear waste in Britain was put in the spotlight last year when the Guardian published Nuclear Leaks, a year-long investigation into problems with cyber­security, safety and a “toxic” culture at Sellafield. Most of the waste now at the Cumbria site will be sent to a GDF, probably between 2050 and 2125.

While it can be argued that the Copeland sites have communities familiar with nuclear waste, it is an alien industry for Theddlethorpe, where geologists are studying the clay rock under the seabed.

Proponents of a GDF at Theddlethorpe, where a facility would be built onshore and the store tunnelled under the sea six miles off the coast, argue it will bring not only jobs but investment – in flood defences, road improvements and rail links. Detractors say its largely retired community will barely contribute to the workforce, and its holiday parks will play host only to construction workers while tourism slowly dies. A government gaffe in which Skegness was wrongly spelled as “Skegross” on a map did little to engender local support.

Ken Smith, a retired former lecturer and chair of the Guardians of the East Coast pressure group, says: “People call us nimbys and tell us that we’re only interested in the impact on house prices, but that’s a red herring. It’s about the people who live here and the way this could change their lives.”

A test of public support for the Theddlethorpe project is likely to be conducted in 2027. Jon Collins, the independent chair of the Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership, says only a small number of the 10,000 people who live in the search area have yet expressed an opinion. “There are a lot of people who have yet to engage. People deserve the opportunity to have a proper debate with all the facts before a decision is made.”

In Mid Copeland, David Moore, 70, a retired farmer, says local support for the project has increased in recent years. “Our community has been brought up handling radioactive waste,” says Moore, a representative on the Mid Copeland GDF community partnership. “We have a highly skilled workforce, and know it brings highly paid jobs.” Residents in nearby South Copeland are more circumspect, he claims.

A contentious element of the project has been the £1m a year in funds offered to prospective sites, handed out by NWS. Spending has included £382,067 for an adventure playground, garden and CCTV at the village halls; £49,981 on a project to reduce loneliness; and £26,102 to the Parrot Zoo Trust. Some locals see the taxpayer money as a “bribe”; others argue the money might as well be taken while the debate continues.

Collins says any final decision needs to take into account both local opinion and the best geological conditions for the site.

But Smith says: “A GDF is simply sweeping the problem under the carpet. My worry is that I want future generations to enjoy what I have I can take my grandchildren for a picnic on the beach: you can’t do that at Sellafield. I do not want the area to be torn apart. If they industrialise this coastline then all that enjoyment will be lost.”

NWS said: “A GDF will only be built where there is a suitable site and a willing community. This is a consent-based process and we are committed to giving local people all the information they need, listening to all voices and letting local people have their say on the topic.”

March 5, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

The Ukrainian Intelligence Committee Is Preparing For The Worst-Case Scenario

ANDREW KORYBKO, FEB 28, 2024,  https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-ukrainian-intelligence-committee—

What’s regarded as the worst-case scenario from the perspective of the ruling Ukrainian elite and their Western masters is the best-case scenario for the rest of the world. In the event that Zelensky is deposed and peace talks immediately resume right as Russia breaks through the Line of Contact, then NATO might not feel as pressured by its security dilemma with Russia to conventionally intervene in Ukraine, thus reducing the risk of World War III by miscalculation.

The Ukrainian Intelligence Committee warned in a Telegram post about the worst-case scenario that could happen by June whereby a Russian breakthrough across the Line of Contact (LOC) merges with protests over conscription and Zelensky’s illegitimacy to deal a deathblow to the state. They predictably claimed that those protests, along with claims of growing fatigue inside Western and Ukrainian societies plus civil-military tensions in Kiev, are just “Russian disinformation” even though they all veritably exist.

“Zelensky Is Desperate To Preemptively Discredit Potentially Forthcoming Protests Against Him” and that’s why he claimed in late November that Russia is conspiring to orchestrate a so-called “Maidan 3” against him, which is what the Intelligence Committee explicitly referred to in their post. Their warning also came as Ukrainian media reported that Zelensky plans to ask the Constitutional Court to rule on holding elections during martial law in order to retain legitimacy after his term expires on 20 May.

The preceding hyperlinked report from Turkish media also mentions how “opposition party leaders Petro Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko proposed forming a coalition government to avoid a crisis of legitimacy” but were rebuked by National Security Council chief Danilov. What’s so interesting about this proposal is that it was first tabled by an expert from the powerful Atlantic Council think tank in an article that they published in Politico in mid-December in order to serve that exact same purpose.

This reminder and the subsequent proposal by those two opposition party leaders debunks the notion that questions about Zelensky’s legitimacy are solely the result of “Russian disinformation” just like a top European think tank’s latest poll from January debunks the same about fatigue over this conflict. The European Council on Foreign Relations, which can’t credibly be described as “pro-Russian”, found that only 10% of Europeans think that Ukraine will defeat Russia.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the Congressional deadlock over more Ukraine aid proves that such sentiments are shared in the halls of power, and those who hold these views understandably don’t want to continue throwing hard-earn taxpayer funds into a doomed-to-fail proxy war. Western leaders as a whole, however, are clearly panicking over the latest military-strategic dynamics that followed the failure of Kiev’s counteroffensive last summer and Russia’s recent victory in Avdeevka.

That’s why many of them debated whether to conventionally intervene in Ukraine during Monday’s meeting in Paris that was attended by over 20 European leaders. French President Macron said that this can’t be ruled out despite there being no consensus on the issue, which his Polish counterpart confirmed was the most heated part of their discussions that day. This prompted strong denials from all other Western leaders who claimed that they’ll never authorize this, but their words can’t be taken seriously.

After all, the worst-case scenario that the Ukrainian Intelligence Committee warned about and is actively trying to discredit as supposedly being driven solely by “Russian disinformation” could push them to conventionally intervene in order to avert the state’s collapse and an Afghan-like disaster in Europe. NATO is unlikely to sit idly on the sidelines if Russia steamrolls through the ruins after breaking through the LOC by sometime this summer, hence why a conventional intervention truly can’t be ruled out.

It would be very unpopular in the West as proven by the previously mentioned think tank’s latest poll and the ongoing Congressional deadlock over Ukraine aid, but that doesn’t mean that the elite won’t do it since they don’t take public opinion into consideration when formulating foreign and military policy. Even so, the large-scale protests that could follow in Europe are something that the elite want to avoid, but they might still risk them in order for their geopolitical project in Ukraine not to be totally for naught.

After all, the worst-case scenario that the Ukrainian Intelligence Committee warned about and is actively trying to discredit as supposedly being driven solely by “Russian disinformation” could push them to conventionally intervene in order to avert the state’s collapse and an Afghan-like disaster in Europe. NATO is unlikely to sit idly on the sidelines if Russia steamrolls through the ruins after breaking through the LOC by sometime this summer, hence why a conventional intervention truly can’t be ruled out.

It would be very unpopular in the West as proven by the previously mentioned think tank’s latest poll and the ongoing Congressional deadlock over Ukraine aid, but that doesn’t mean that the elite won’t do it since they don’t take public opinion into consideration when formulating foreign and military policy. Even so, the large-scale protests that could follow in Europe are something that the elite want to avoid, but they might still risk them in order for their geopolitical project in Ukraine not to be totally for naught.

Considering the global significance of this conflict, what’s regarded as the worst-case scenario from the perspective of the ruling Ukrainian elite and their Western masters is therefore the best-case scenario for the rest of the world. In the event that Zelensky is deposed and peace talks immediately resume right as Russia breaks through the LOC, then NATO might not feel as pressured by its security dilemma with Russia to conventionally intervene in Ukraine, thus reducing the risk of World War III by miscalculation.

March 5, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »