Does Nuclear slow down the scale-up of Wind and Solar? France and Germany can’t agree
July 21, 2023 by Camille Lafrance and Benjamin Wehrmann
France and Germany lead the camps in disagreeing on the future of nuclear in Europe. Camille Lafrance and Benjamin Wehrmann at CLEW take a deep dive into the reasons why, quoting experts and politicians. Germany’s vision of a fully renewables-based EU is at odds with France’s unwavering support for low-carbon nuclear energy. European-wide agreement on targets matter because they drive future investment in the targeted technologies and the design of Europe’s grid, markets, policies, budgets and all the rest. A nuclear-light renewables-heavy Europe will look very different from one where nuclear baseload sits robustly within the cross-border market. And a major concern is that more nuclear means less renewables, at a time when wind and solar need all the scale they can get. Yet nuclear is fossil-free too, and France has the lowest emissions per head of any rich country. If agreement cannot be met, can Europe meet its decarbonisation goals? Time is running out.
The role of nuclear power in Europe’s transition away from fossil fuels has been a point of contention between French and German governments for a long time. In the year 2000, Germany decided to phase out nuclear energy and, despite temporarily backtracking on its decision before the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, ultimately completed its nuclear exit in April 2023.
France, on the other hand, has the highest share of nuclear in the energy mix of any country in the world and, despite temporarily considering to radically cut its reliance on nuclear power after Fukushima, has committed to building many new reactors as part of its bid to meet European climate targets and net-zero emissions by 2050.
…………………. disputes about nuclear energy between France and Germany come with major implications for the strategic positioning on energy and climate policy of the whole EU.
…………………………………… …Nuclear safety
And also nuclear safety concerns continue to occupy experts in France as much as anywhere. In mid-2023, 800 French scientists warned against the risks of the country’s new nuclear programme, pointing to unresolved questions of radioactive waste management, which remain largely unresolved in most of the EU, including in France. The scientists also warned against risks of accidental contamination or meltdown.
…Prices, costs
Securing funding from Brussels for the major buildout is regarded as a substantial challenge to France’s plans.
In France, investments in renewable energy have been on the rise since 2016, as costs have gone down. According to data by U.S. investment bank Lazar, prices per megawatt hour (MWh) produced with renewables have dropped dramatically between 2009 and 2019 alone, while that of nuclear power went up. Solar power generation costs dropped nearly 90 percent to 40 dollars per MWh and onshore wind 70 percent to 41 dollars per MWh. Nuclear power costs per unit in the same decade increased 26 percent to 155 dollars per MWh. Meanwhile, nuclear power construction costs have risen, while future EPR costs are still uncertain. The sharp rise in interest rates has made building new nuclear plants even more expensive, compounded by reactor construction delays. Nuclear plant operator Electricite de France estimated the cost to be at least 51 billion euros. A convincing policy framework allowing Paris to classify the nuclear bill as an investment in the EU Green Deal could thus send and important signal to potential nuclear power investors.
France also pushed to include nuclear energy in the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED), a target it achieved after protracted negotiations that saw the country form a ‘nuclear alliance’ with sympathetic governments and in opposition to Germany’s insistence on limiting funding to renewable power installations. The French energy minister, Agnes Pannier-Runacher, in mid-2023 said it was “regrettable that Germany is applying the brake” on reforms that enhance nuclear power’s role, arguing this would fail to take the position of a majority of EU countries into account.
Germany’s priorities largely in line with international trends
But the lack of a shared vision extends beyond the bilateral relationship of France and Germany. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared in spring 2023 that nuclear power was not a ‘strategic’ technology in reaching the EU’s climate goals. Nevertheless, the technology remains at the heart of many debates at the European level. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://energypost.eu/does-nuclear-slow-down-the-scale-up-of-wind-and-solar-france-and-germany-cant-agree/
Kiev strikes ammunition depot in Crimea – official
https://www.rt.com/russia/580106-kiev-strikes-ammunition-depot-crimea/ 23 July 23
Governor Sergey Aksyonov has ordered a mass evacuation from the danger zone
A Ukrainian drone strike has resulted in an explosion at an ammunition depot in the central part of the Crimean peninsula, local Governor Sergey Aksyonov said on Saturday. According to preliminary information, the incident has not resulted in any casualties, he added.
Writing on Telegram, Aksyonov said the detonation had taken place in the Krasnogvardeysky district. “A decision has been made to evacuate the population within a 5km radius from the site of the emergency and place them in temporary accommodation facilities,” he added.
The governor stated that the authorities had also suspended rail traffic in the area in order to “minimize risks,” while expressing hope that the emergency would be dealt with quickly.
The Ukrainian Armed Forces have confirmed the strikes, claiming that they “had destroyed an oil depot and Russian military warehouses” in the area.
Crimea has repeatedly been targeted by Ukrainian drone and missile attacks since Moscow launched its military operation against Kiev over a year ago. On Thursday, Aksyonov said a Ukrainian UAV raid on the peninsula had killed a teenage girl and damaged several administrative buildings.
Earlier this week, a sea drone strike on the Crimean Bridge – which Russia called a Ukrainian terrorist attack – damaged one section of the roadway and claimed the lives of a married couple from Belgorod Region, as well as injuring their 14-year-old daughter.
Kiev stopped short of claiming responsibility, but celebrated the incident, while Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky later called the bridge a legitimate military target.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has condemned the raid as a “terrorist attack” that was pointless from a military standpoint, adding that the bridge has not been used for transporting military materials for a long time. In the aftermath of the incident, Moscow launched several “retaliatory strikes” on targets in Ukrainian port cities.
France needs to invest 25 billion euros ($28 billion) each year to maintain its nuclear energy programme
EDF will need to invest around 25 billion euros ($28 billion) each year to
keep its nuclear fleet and network in shape and build new reactors required
for France’s energy transition, the company’s CEO said on Wednesday.
Grilled by lawmakers during a hearing before the French National Assembly’s
economic affairs committee, EDF’s Luc Remont said France also needed to
rethink parts of the company’s business model and its electricity tariff
policy to allow the utility to boost investments.
Reuters 19th July 2023
Putin warns of Poland’s intentions in Ukraine and Belarus
Warsaw is looking to take control over western parts of Ukraine, the Russian president claims
Polish leaders are planning to form a NATO-backed coalition to intervene in the Ukraine conflict and take over parts of western Ukraine as well as, possibly, Belarus, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on Friday.
Speaking at a meeting with permanent members of Russia’s Security Council, Putin said the government in Kiev is willing to go to any lengths to stay in power, including selling out its own people and handing over Ukrainian territories to “foreign owners.”
The first in line, according to the Russian president, are the Poles, who he claimed “probably expect to form some kind of coalition under the ‘NATO umbrella’ and directly intervene in the conflict in Ukraine, in order to then ‘tear off’ a bigger piece for themselves, to regain, as they believe, their historical territories – today’s western Ukraine.”……………………………………………….. more https://www.rt.com/russia/580080-poland-western-ukraine-putin/
Scottish CND hit out over ‘nuclear threat’ in MPs’ military report
ANTI-NUCLEAR campaigners have criticised a report from MPs on defence in Scotland – accusing politicians on focusing on the “capacity for war”.
A new report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, chaired by SNP MP Pete Wishart, called on the UK Government to outline how the military presence in the High North of Scotland could be increased in response to potential security threats.
While noting the opposition of SNP committee members to Trident, the report said MPs recogised the “serious implications for the UK and Nato should the nuclear fleet ever be removed from Faslane”.
The report, which focused on the strategic importance of Scotland’s geography in light of perceived threats from China and Russia, also made the case for “devolved diplomacy from Edinburgh”.
Lynn Jamieson, chair of the Scottish CND, told the Morning Star: “It focuses on capacity for war fighting backed by nuclear threat, not collaboration to build peace, to strengthen international law and to mitigate climate change.
“Scotland is a ‘physical asset’ with military hardware and space for more and bigger bases.
“The nuclear weapons Scottish people did not vote to host are taken for granted.
“Their existential threat to the world and their everyday risks and harms in Scotland are ignored.
Former chair of UK CND and Alba Party member Marjorie Thompson said: “This report is the complete opposite of what the Scottish independence movement should be advocating, never mind actively promoting on behalf of the UK Parliament and Government.
“The national movement of Scotland has a proud anti-war tradition and has been at the forefront of the disarmament movement.
“All pro-independence parties should distance themselves from this report and ensure that the independence movement stays on the side of peace and disarmament – not the side of the military complex of failed Westminster foreign policy.”
Speaking when the report was published last week, Wishart said: “Because of its geography Scotland is home to a number of the UK’s strategic military assets and in our report we call on the UK Government to look at how the defence presence in Scotland could be scaled up if required to meet future threats. We are also calling for a review of the UK’s cold weather capabilities.”
The Empire Knows It’s Pouring Ukrainian Blood Into An Unwinnable Proxy War
That’s right kids! We’re turning Ukraine into an uninhabitable wasteland of death and dismemberment to save the Ukrainians
Caitlin’s Newsletter CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, JUL 24, 2023
In a new article titled “Ukraine’s Lack of Weaponry and Training Risks Stalemate in Fight With Russia,” The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Michaels reports that western officials knew Ukrainian forces didn’t have the weapons and training necessary to succeed in their highly touted counteroffensive which was launched last month.
Michaels writes:…………………………………………………
The claim that western officials had sincerely believed Ukrainian forces might be able to overcome their glaring deficits through sheer pluck and ticker is undermined later in the same article by a war pundit who says the US would never attempt such a counteroffensive without first controlling the skies, which Ukraine doesn’t have the ability to do:
“America would never attempt to defeat a prepared defense without air superiority, but they [Ukrainians] don’t have air superiority,” the U.S. Army War College’s John Nagl told WSJ. “It’s impossible to overstate how important air superiority is for fighting a ground fight at a reasonable cost in casualties.”
Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp writes the following on the latest WSJ revelation:
“Leading up to the Ukrainian counteroffensive, which was launched in June, the Discord leaks and media reports revealed that the US did not believe Ukraine could regain much territory from Russia. But the Biden administration pushed for the assault anyway, as it rejected the idea of a pause in fighting.”
So the empire is still knowingly throwing Ukrainian lives into the meat grinder of an unwinnable proxy war, even as western officials tell the public that this war is about saving Ukrainian lives and handing Putin a crushing defeat whenever they’re on camera.
This attitude from the empire is not a new development. Last October The Washington Post reported that “Privately, U.S. officials say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright, but they have ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table.”
Now why might that be? Why would the western empire be so comfortable encouraging Ukrainians to keep fighting when it knows they can’t win?
We find our answer in another Washington Post article titled “The West feels gloomy about Ukraine. Here’s why it shouldn’t.”, authored last week by virulent empire propagandist David Ignatius. In his eagerness to frame the floundering counteroffensive in a positive light for his American audience, Ignatius let slip an inconvenient truth:
“Meanwhile, for the United States and its NATO allies, these 18 months of war have been a strategic windfall, at relatively low cost (other than for the Ukrainians). The West’s most reckless antagonist has been rocked. NATO has grown much stronger with the additions of Sweden and Finland. Germany has weaned itself from dependence on Russian energy and, in many ways, rediscovered its sense of values. NATO squabbles make headlines, but overall, this has been a triumphal summer for the alliance.”
Anyone who believes this proxy war is about helping Ukrainians should be made to read that paragraph over and over again until it sinks in. The admission that the US-centralized power structure benefits immensely from this proxy conflict is revealing enough, but that parenthetical “other than for the Ukrainians” aside really drives it home. It reads as though it was added as an afterthought, like “Oh yeah it’s actually kind of rough on the Ukrainians though — if you consider them to be people.”
The claim that this war is about helping Ukrainians has been further undermined by another new Washington Post report that Ukraine is now more riddled with land mines than any other nation on earth, and that US-supplied cluster munitions are only making the land more deadly.
That’s right kids! We’re turning Ukraine into an uninhabitable wasteland of death and dismemberment to save the Ukrainians.
We should probably talk more about the fact that the US empire is loudly promoting the goal of achieving peace in Ukraine by defeating Russia while quietly acknowledging that this goal is impossible. This is like accelerating toward a brick wall and pretending it’s an open road.
The narrative that Russia can be beaten by ramping up proxy warfare against it makes sense if you believe Russia can be militarily defeated in Ukraine, but the US empire does not believe that Russia can be militarily defeated in Ukraine. It knows that continuing this war is only going to perpetuate the death and devastation.
“Beat Putin’s ass and make him withdraw” sounds cool and is egoically gratifying, and it’s become the mainstream answer to the problem of the war in Ukraine, but nobody promoting that answer can address the fact that the ones driving this proxy war believe it’s impossible. In fact, all evidence we’re seeing suggests that the US is not trying to deliver Putin a crushing defeat in Ukraine and force him to withdraw, but is rather trying to create another long and costly military quagmire for Moscow, as western cold warriors have done repeatedly in instances like Afghanistan and Syria.
Wanting to weaken Russia and wanting to save lives and establish peace in Ukraine are two completely different goals, so different that in practice they wind up being largely contradictory. Drawing Moscow into a bloody quagmire means many more people dying in a war that drags on for years, with all the immense human suffering that that entails.
The US does not want peace in Ukraine, it wants to overextend Russia, shore up military and energy dominance over Europe, expand its war machine and enrich the military-industrial complex. That’s why it knowingly provoked this war. It’s posing as Ukraine’s savior while being clearly invested in Ukraine’s destruction.
It is not legitimate to support this proxy war without squarely addressing this massive contradiction using hard facts and robust argumentation. Nobody ever has. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-empire-knows-its-pouring-ukrainian?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=135389526&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Ukraine’s Lack of Weaponry and Training Risks Stalemate in Fight With Russia
U.S. and Kyiv knew of shortfalls but Kyiv still launched offensive
WSJ, By Daniel Michaels, July 22, 2023
BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
They haven’t. Deep and deadly minefields, extensive fortifications and Russian air power have combined to largely block significant advances by Ukrainian troops. Instead, the campaign risks descending into a stalemate with the potential to burn through lives and equipment without a major shift in momentum.
As the likelihood of any large-scale breakthrough by the Ukrainians this year dims, it raises the unsettling prospect for Washington and its allies of a longer war—one that would require a huge new infusion of sophisticated armaments and more training to give Kyiv a chance at victory.
The political calculus for the Biden administration is complicated. President Biden is up for re-election in the fall of 2024 and many in Washington believe concerns in the White House about the war’s impact on the campaign are prompting growing caution on the amount of support to offer Kyiv.
The American hesitation contrasts with shifting views in Europe, where more leaders over recent months have come to believe that Ukraine must prevail in the conflict—and Russia must lose—to ensure the continent’s security.
But European militaries lack sufficient resources to supply Ukraine with all it needs to eject Moscow’s armies from the roughly 20% of the country that they control. European leaders are also unlikely to significantly increase support to Kyiv if they sense U.S. reluctance, Western diplomats say.
The shift in trans-Atlantic political winds, evident in tensions between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. officials at the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Lithuania, has come as Ukraine’s long-expected offensive appears stalled. Kyiv’s inability to make headway against Russian defenses has persuaded many Western military observers that Ukrainian forces need more training in complex military maneuvers, more-potent air defenses and much more armor.
Moscow’s military, meanwhile, is grappling with low morale because of exhaustion, poor supplies and infighting among Russian leaders, Ukrainian and Western intelligence indicates. Russia appears unable to seize the initiative and attack Ukrainian positions, but its forces remain robust enough to man hundreds of miles of fortifications and large numbers of aircraft, which are keeping Kyiv’s troops at bay……………………………………………………………………………… more https://archive.is/D6CQZ#selection-625.0-634.1
Tory nuclear expansion programme
Renew Extra Weekly, 22 July 23
“…..a bit delayed, the secretary of state for energy security and net zero, Grant Shapps, has officially launched Great British Nuclear (GBN), the new ‘arm’s-length’ government agency that is meant drive the delivery of new nuclear energy projects- especially small modular reactors (SMRs). The press release was very up tempo…………………………………………
………talk of a ‘massive revival’ of UK nuclear may be a bit premature. In all about £233m has been allocated to new SMR work so far, plus £700m for the big Sizewell C., and it’s far from clear whether either of these options, big or small, will get the go ahead. Funding Sizewell C will not be easy, according to a review in Nuclear Engineering International, with few investors coming forward, and a review of SMR options concluded that ‘none of the tested concepts is able to compete economically with existing renewable technologies’.
Nevertheless, a tender for procurement contracts for SMRs has been launched which states that between one and four awards could be made for grant funding, and, ultimately, up to £20bn spent on developing designs and funding construction. However, that’s all a bit speculative. ……………………………the £20bn will mostly presumably involve GBN seeking partnerships with private sector companies and private finance. Shapps stressed that this was ‘not a spending commitment’ by government.
……… It will in any case take a while for GBN to get fully established, at present it hardly exists, and even longer for SMRs to exist- the Guardian noted that, in relation to the SMR competition, ‘a final decision on each project will not occur before 2029’.
……..the Rolls Royce isalso not exactly a small reactor. At 470MW, it is actually larger than unit 1 at Fukushima and most of the old UK Magnox reactors.
…………………………..chided by Labour, with Shadow energy minister Alan Whitehead saying ‘it’s shambolic that after 13 years of Tory government, not one of the 10 nuclear sites approved by the last Labour government have been built,’ the UK does now have an ambitious nuclear programme, at least on paper, with a commitment to build a massive 24GW of nuclear capacity, the equivalent of a quarter of total generating capacity, by 2050. But, as I have indicated, it is far from clear if it can be achieved, especially given the low cost of renewables.
……………………….Leaving aside the cost issue and the still unresolved issue of long term radioactive waste disposal, nuclear enthusiasts do sometimes claim that we will need nuclear to back up variable renewables. However, there are cheaper ways to do that, including advanced batteries,………………………….
Given options like these, the whole idea of needing ‘baseload plants’ has become redundant. Certainly building new large inflexible nuclear plants for backup would be very expensive and inefficient, and we have no idea if SMRs would be any better. ………………………………………………….. more https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2023/07/tory-nuclear-expansion-programme.html
Europe’s black hole: How much of the more than $185 billion given by the West to Ukraine has been stolen?
Rt.com By George Trenin, 20 Jul 23
The fate of huge amounts of aid sent to the country is uncertain amid endemic corruption and a lack of accountability.
As a result of last week’s NATO summit in Vilnius, the US-led military bloc promised Ukraine fresh tranches of financial and military aid. This was despite the fact that by the beginning of the summer, Kiev had already received a total of €165 billion ($185.6 billion) from Western countries. Meanwhile, as the spending increases, the number of US and EU citizens who are willing to sacrifice their own comfort for the sake of Kiev appears to be steadily decreasing.
One of the reasons for this is corruption in Ukraine, which – despite some lofty promises – seems to be as bad now as it was before the Western-backed 2014 ‘Maidan’ coup. If not worse.
Moral compensation
The NATO summit, despite Ukraine’s hopes, did not bring it a long-awaited timeframe for membership. Instead, Western leaders announced new military aid packages for Kiev.
According to the French newspaper Le Monde, French President Emmanuel Macron promised to give Ukraine a “substantial number” of SCALP missiles that can hit targets at a distance of 250 kilometers. According to France24, each costs €850,000.
Berlin announced a package amounting to €700 million. Germany plans to supply Ukraine with launchers for the Patriot missile defense system, Marder-type infantry fighting vehicles, UAVs, Leopard 1 A5 tanks, and artillery shells. However, for Berlin, this is not even close to a record gift value. On May 21, the German Foreign Ministry announced the transfer of military aid to Ukraine worth €2.7 billion.
On July 7, US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl spoke about a new package of aid from the US which includes cluster munitions – which are banned in 120 countries. The cost was $800 million.
This is the 42nd delivery of aid that Ukraine has received from the US in the past year and a half. Since the beginning of Russia’s offensive, the US Congress has approved military and economic assistance to Ukraine amounting to over $70 billion – and that’s only counting direct expenses.
According to July data from the Kiel Institute (which tracks the volume of aid allocated to Ukraine), total direct subvention provided by the US and its allies in the period from February 24, 2022 to May 31, 2023 topped €165 billion.
The rate at which new tranches are allocated increases every month. For example, at the end of April, the total amount of aid was €15 billion less than it is now – according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, it was then €150 billion. ……………………………………………………………………………..
the risk of corruption exists not only within state borders but that fraud can also occur when concluding contracts in the US. Furthermore, the theft of weapons or other aid may happen as it travels to the war zone through Europe.
Another official involved in criminal investigations at the Pentagon also told Defense One that his department is “concerned about the potential diversion or legal export, or theft for that matter, of the goods.”
Many American businesses do not trust the Ukrainian authorities either and believe that aid is being stolen. According to US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, private businesses doubt that the funds allocated to Ukraine for reconstruction will be safe from corruption.
nternal games
The corruption issue is acknowledged in Ukraine as well. This spring, the ex-adviser of the office of the president of Ukraine, Aleksey Arestovich, said on his YouTube channel that his old boss, Vladimir Zelensky, has not been able to deal with corruption in Ukraine.
“Ukraine needs only one thing… To have someone come to power who won’t steal. Someone who won’t do it himself and won’t allow others to do so. Unfortunately, so far we haven’t been lucky,” he said.
…………………………………………….. “The Ukrainian president and many in his entourage have been skimming untold millions from the American dollars earmarked for diesel fuel payments. One estimate by analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency put the embezzled funds at $400 million last year, at least,” – American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh stated that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and his entourage illegally appropriated at least $400 million from funds that were allocated to Kiev for the purchase of diesel fuel.
…………….. Moreover, Hersh says that CIA Director William Burns was displeased with Zelensky because of the possible theft of Western aid, since “he was taking a larger share of the skim money than was going to the generals.” ……………… more https://www.rt.com/russia/579897-europes-black-hole-ukraine/
Luck Is Not a Strategy for the Ukraine, The Germans Take the “Evidence-based” Path.
We Chat with Nuclear Expert Dr. Paul Dorfman
Hot Globe, STEVE CHAPPLE, JUL 20, 2023
“………………………………………………………………………………. HOT GLOBE: It’s always bothered me that Saudi Arabia because of the Trump administration has now got access to the beginnings of nuclear power, and to a future nuclear bomb. The idea of selling small nuclear reactors around the world raises a pretty problematic point.
DORFMAN: That’s absolutely true. Saudi has made no bones about its nuclear ambitions and I mean its military nuclear ambitions. Saudi diplomats have said quite clearly that they’re looking towards Iran and that they’re seriously thinking about both civil and military nuclear. So there’s a potential for an arms race, a military nuclear arms race in the Middle East region. It’s actually even more bad news for the Middle East because in a proxy war if say, for example, Russian and America wanted to have a bit of a go and they didn’t want to absolutely destroy each other’s country where would they be fighting their proxy nuclear war? The first region that comes to mind is the Middle East and Saudi and Iran.
The economies of small nuclear reactors depend absolutely on production to scale. It’s been proven time and time again that in order to make any money at all, to break even on small nuclear production, you need to sell them abroad. Now, selling them abroad to whom, for what reasons? You’d be selling them to developing nations who may or may not have the capacity to regulate, to protect, to defend in depth, and so therefore you would be significantly expanding the potential for military nuclear risk whether that means a dirty bomb or further nuclear development.
HOT GLOBE: A slightly different question here, but Germany had ongoing nuclear plants and even though they were still producing electricity, they’ve shut those down. That may be a little puzzling to some Americans. Can you explain that?
DORFMAN: First of all, what Germany does is evidence-based policy. Germany puts out its scientific, technological questions, its energy questions, to well-funded high level research units. They go away and do their research. They come back with their research. They give it to the government departments and then the government makes a decision. So it’s evidence-based policy making. Over the years Germany has said well, we want to get to net-zero and we’re kind of worried about nuclear. Now around 2011 when Fukushima happened–remember Chancellor Merkel is a PhD chemist. She realized like many of us that even in an advanced society things could go badly wrong since accidents are by definition accidental.
HOT GLOBE: Good line
DORFMAN: Yeah, who knew? [laughs] So when Fukushima happened, Merkel and many others in Germany said well, look, we can’t stand the pain of this. I was having supper with Naoto Kan, the premier of Japan at the time of Fukushima after we both spoke in Westminster. Even then I was shocked when he turned to me and said that if the wind had been in the wrong direction, they would have lost Tokyo. The majority of the pollution went out into the Pacific Ocean. Now to the point about Germany. It’s landlocked so the Germans looked at the possibility of an accident and they came up with the numbers. It would cost trillions and trillions and trillions of Euros if they had a nuclear accident and they said look, we really can’t be doing this. This is just crazy, basically, and so we’re going to do “the German energy transition.” We’re going to try to lead the world on this and we’re going to move stepwise into renewables-plus, that’s renewables solar wind energy storage, interconnection, demand site management, energy management, distributed grids and a significant centralized upgrade of grids, too.
Now clearly Germany has a core problem, a fossil fuel problem, but they didn’t want to go down the fissile fuel route so Germany has said well OK for the time being we’re going to rely on gas but then we’re going to move to a full renewable economy. Well, the war has speeded that up. Since the war Germany has burnt less coal and Germany has shuttered all its nuclear power plants. It’s done this because what Germany says it will do, it does, unlike many other states. It set upon a route to go renewables. Now there is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything costs and there’s no perfect solution to the energy crisis, but what Germany is trying to do is to lead the world in this so-called energy transition, and I won’t spout numbers but basically what has happened is you’ve just seen significant renewable deployment, significant storage and a water storage as it were deployment which is sort of integrated into the power system and also integrated into the democratic system whereby by local communities also own the local renewable aspects of the local renewable power generation. It’s basically saying well look yes we can do this rather like Americans, you know, we have a dream, we will try to do this, it will be difficult but we will do our best to get there since the costs and the risks of nuclear are far too great. Let’s find a realistic, sustainable, positive, constructive way through……..
more https://hotglobe.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-is-already-a-climate
Corruption In Ukraine & The U.S. Mutually Rewarding
The Pentagon failed its 5th consecutive audit last year, appearing to lose track of 61% of its $3.5 trillion in assets.
Substack, LISA SAVAGE, JUL 20, 2023
“…………………………………………………………………………………………. Ukraine’s leaders are so over the top that it’s becoming impossible to ignore. Add in the fact that they have been enriched by U.S. taxpayers more or less directly despite crumbling infrastructure, catastrophic homelessness, apartheid healthcare, and a host of other problems that the U.S. could address with adequate funding.
From RT (whose editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, just survived a second assassination attempt):
On July 7, US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl spoke about a new package of aid from the US which includes cluster munitions – which are banned in 120 countries. The cost was $800 million.This is the 42nd delivery of aid that Ukraine has received from the US in the past year and a half.[emphasis mine] Since the beginning of Russia’s offensive, the US Congress has approved military and economic assistance to Ukraine amounting to over $70 billion – and that’s only counting direct expenses..
“Ukraine needs only one thing… To have someone come to power who won’t steal. Someone who won’t do it himself and won’t allow others to do so. Unfortunately, so far we haven’t been lucky,” [Aleksey Arestovich, former advisor to President Zelensky] said.
Ok, so Arestovich has a motive for trashing the government that used to include him. How about Pulitzer Prize-winning U.S. investigative journalist Seymour Hersh? Hersh does not approve of Russia’s entry into the war but he nonetheless published a piece on rampant corruption in Ukraine, “Trading with the Enemy,” back in April.
Zelensky has been buying fuel from Russia, the country with which it, and Washington, are at war, and the Ukrainian president and many in his entourage have been skimming untold millions from the American dollars earmarked for diesel fuel payments. One estimate by analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency put the embezzled funds at $400 million last year, at least; another expert compared the level of corruption in Kiev as approaching that of the Afghan war………………………………
Then there is President Zelensky, elected on pledges to end corruption and, incidentally, the war on the Donbas.
Pre-2022, i.e. when corporate media headlines about Ukraine did a 180, even The Guardian found he was part of the problem and not likely to be part of the solution.
Neither is the U.S. government likely to be part of the solution. The Pentagon failed its fifth consecutive audit last year, appearing to lose track of 61% of its $3.5 trillion in assets……………………….. more https://went2thebridge.substack.com/p/corruption-in-ukraine-and-the-us?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1580975&post_id=135301485&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email_medium=email
Is the UK Government unable to fund its promised nuclear renaissance?
- “Great British Nuclear has no legal basis – the Energy Bill has been delayed till the autumn, so it can’t do anything legally.
- “Great British Nuclear has no budget, so it can’t buy anything or commission anything.
- “Great British Nuclear has no premises.
- “Great British Nuclear has no paid staff.”
Great British Nuclear officially launched, sparks funding doubts.
Electrical Review 18th July 2023
“………………… So we’ve heard that Great British Nuclear has high hopes to kickstart a renaissance period for nuclear power in the UK, but how does it plan on achieving that? Well, thanks to the official launch, we now have more concrete information as to what the body plans to do.
The UK Government has officially launched Great British Nuclear, a new Government agency that is designed to support the growth of nuclear energy in the UK.
The official launch of Great British Nuclear was initially tipped for July 13, although the launch was pushed back due to “unforeseen circumstances.” Despite the delayed start, the Government has high hopes for the new department, with it hoping to create a renaissance for nuclear energy in the UK.
One of Great British Nuclear’s first acts will be to kickstart a competition for small modular reactor (SMR) technology, which it believes could help boost energy security, create cheaper power, and grow the economy through well-paid jobs.
Many in the industry have been calling for the UK Government to do more to encourage the construction of more nuclear power, including SMRs, as the UK transitions towards cleaner power generation. The UK Government has even gone so far as to claim that nuclear will be essential to our net zero future, noting that it will provide a ‘baseload’ to cover more intermittent renewable energy generation – something that our Gossage Gossip columnist recently described as a ‘load of cobblers’.
How will Great British Nuclear Help?
So we’ve heard that Great British Nuclear has high hopes to kickstart a renaissance period for nuclear power in the UK, but how does it plan on achieving that? Well, thanks to the official launch, we now have more concrete information as to what the body plans to do.
From today, companies can register their interest with Great British Nuclear to participate in a competition to secure funding support to develop their SMRs. Additionally, the Government body is eager to explore future sites for new large gigawatt-scale nuclear power plants, such as those at Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C.
That’s about as much as we know about Great British Nuclear’s initial plans – although the UK Government is throwing its weight behind the nuclear industry with a brand-new funding package totalling up to £157 million.
This includes:
Up to £77.1 million of funding for companies to accelerate advanced nuclear business development in the UK and support advanced nuclear designs to enter UK regulation, maximising the chance of small and advanced modular reactors being built during the next ParliamentUp to £58 million funding for the further development and design of a type of advanced modular reactor (AMR) and next generation fuel. AMRs operate at a higher temperature than SMRs and as a result they could provide high temperature heat for hydrogen and other industrial uses alongside nuclear power. This includes:
- Up to £22.5 million to Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation UK in Warrington to further develop the design of a high temperature micro modular reactor, a type of AMR suited to UK industrial demands including hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel production.
- Up to £15 million to the National Nuclear laboratory in Warrington to accelerate the design of a high temperature reactor, following its success in Japan.
- Up to £16 million to National Nuclear Laboratory in Preston to continue to develop sovereign coated particle fuel capability, a type of robust advanced fuel which is suitable for high temperature reactors.
A further £22.3 million from the Nuclear Fuel Fund will enable eight projects to develop new fuel production and manufacturing capabilities in the UK, driving up energy security and supporting the global move away from Russian fuel. This will include:
- Over £10.5 million to Westinghouse Springfields nuclear fuel plant in Preston to manufacture more innovative types of nuclear fuel for customers both in the UK and overseas, boosting jobs and skills in the North West.
- Over £9.5 million to Urenco UK in Capenhurst Chester, an international supplier of nuclear materials, to enrich uranium to higher levels, including LEU+ and high assay low enriched uranium (HALEU). LEU+ will allow for current reactors and SMRs to run for longer between refuelling outages, improving reactor efficiency and economics both in the UK and abroad. HALEU development will ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of fuel development for future advanced reactors.
- Over £1 million has also been awarded to Nuclear Transport Solutions, a subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, to develop transport solutions to facilitate a supply chain for highly enriched uranium in the UK and internationally.
- Over £1.2 million to support MoltexFLEX, a UK molten salt reactor developer based in the North West, to build and operate rigs for the development of molten salt fuel. Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) are an AMR type that use a molten salt as a coolant and fuel, leading to intrinsic safety compared with conventional fuels.
Is the UK Government unable to fund its promised nuclear renaissance?
Despite announcing £157 million in investment for the nuclear industry in the UK, many experts will argue that the UK Government’s funding plans are woefully inadequate to meaningfully move the needle.
Recent nuclear projects within the UK have been unable to get off the ground without significant Government intervention, including Hinkley Point C, which the Government has committed at least £679 million towards, despite the new reactor facing constant delays – with its opening date now set for September 2028.
Rolls-Royce, which is currently undergoing regulatory testing on its small modular reactor technology, has suggested that SMRs will be cheaper – although the company still believes each SMR will carry a price tag of at least £1.8 billion when they start rolling out of factories in 2030. That is expected to get you around 440 MW of generation – which for the same price, you could purchase 782 Enercon E82 onshore wind turbines, netting you up to 2346 MW of generation.
One industry insider suggested that the UK Government’s woeful funding figures was “the best example I have ever seen of what a Government on its last legs sounds like when it has nothing to say and no money to spend.” Adding that, “All this amount will buy you, literally, is a very large pile of paper and possibly a few more headlines.”
Given the Conservative Party’s performance in recent polls, it’s likely the UK Government is unwilling to commit large amounts to Great British Nuclear when it’s unlikely to be in Government for much longer. Unfortunately, large infrastructure projects of this nature require huge investment across multiple parliamentary terms – and the short-sighted nature of the country’s leaders got us into this situation in the first place. In fact, by the time Hinkley Point C comes online, it will be 20 years since the Government of the day supported a new reactor.
Will the launch of Great British Nuclear move the needle?
The UK Government is hopeful that Great British Nuclear will move the needle in the development of nuclear power technology in the UK. While it may not have the budget to invest in new nuclear reactors itself – it could potentially foster an environment that is ultimately friendly to nuclear power.
Unfortunately, as our industry insider notes:
- “Great British Nuclear has no legal basis – the Energy Bill has been delayed till the autumn, so it can’t do anything legally.
- “Great British Nuclear has no budget, so it can’t buy anything or commission anything.
- “Great British Nuclear has no premises.
- “Great British Nuclear has no paid staff.”
So, the chance of meaningfully moving the needle is essentially nil. But at least the current Government can capture headlines and act like it’s trying to help. https://electricalreview.co.uk/2023/07/18/great-british-nuclear-officially-launched-sparks-funding-doubts/
Don’t believe the UK government’s hype about small nuclear reactors and Great British Nuclear.
In response to Energy Security Secretary Grant Shapps’ announcements
relating to ‘Great British Nuclear’, Dr Doug Parr, Chief Scientist for
Greenpeace UK, said – “As the government tries to whip up investment for
the latest generation of reactors, it is striking how many of the nuclear
industry’s speculative claims are being repeated by ministers as fact.
The hype seems to have been enough to convince our government that nuclear’s
last gasp is in fact a new dawn, but at their radioactive cores SMRs remain
the same bad bet. SMRs have no track record, but initial indications are
that the familiar problems of cost overruns and delays will be repeated,
and the accumulation of unmanageable waste will continue.
Maybe the hope is that splitting one big mistake into several smaller mistakes means each
reactor’s inevitable problems receive less scrutiny?
By continually obsessing about nuclear the government is taking its eye off the net zero
ball, which will have to be delivered through a predominantly renewable,
modern electricity grid. No number of SMRs will fix the government’s
lacklustre effort to address issues of delayed connections, smart local
grids and home efficiency.
The government may argue that renewables can
compete in the market unaided, while nuclear still needs state support to
survive, but atomic power has been showered with money and support for the
best part of a century without ever working well enough to pay its way.
This is a technology that has gone straight from adolescence to
obsolescence without passing through maturity.”
Greenpeace 18th July 2023
Ukraine Again Bombs Crimean Bridge
18, July, 2023 https://scheerpost.com/2023/07/18/ukraine-again-bombs-crimean-bridge/—
Ukrainian sources are telling media outlets it was a joint operation between the SBU and the Ukrainian Navy.
By Dave DeCamp / Antiwar.com
The Crimean Bridge that links Crimea to the Russian mainland was again targeted by Ukrainian forces in a bombing early Monday morning that killed two civilians and injured a young child.
Russian authorities said the Crimean Bridge, also known as the Kerch Bridge, was targeted by drones operating on the surface of the water. The previous attack on the bridge that took place in October 2022 was a truck bombing.
Ukrainian sources are telling media outlets that the attack was a joint operation between Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) and Ukraine’s Navy. The government in Kyiv hasn’t officially taken credit for the attack but has hinted at responsibility, which is typical of their covert attacks on Russian territory.
Russian authorities have halted vehicle traffic on the bridge and are assessing the damage. According to RT, rail transport on the bridge was temporarily halted but has resumed.
The Crimean Bridge is a sensitive target for Russia, and the last time it was attacked, Russian President Vladimir Putin significantly escalated the war. In response, the Russian military began large-scale missile strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure, which it hadn’t done before October 2022.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova hinted at Western involvement in the Monday attack, saying that Ukrainian decisions on such operations are made “with the direct participation of American and British intelligence services and politicians.”
The Grayzone previously reported that British intelligence officials were plotting ways to blow up the Crimean Bridge before the October 2022 attack. The Grayzone obtained a presentation drawn up for British intelligence in April 2022 that reviewed options for attacking the bridge.
The document suggested using cruise missiles or divers to plant mines to blow up the bridge. The Ukrainian attacks differed operationally, but the existence of the document signals the British could have helped Ukraine plot the attacks or at least offered advice.
US turning Ukraine into ‘burial ground’ for lethal waste – Russian envoy
Rt.com 19 Jul 23
Undetonated cluster bombs will make normal life “impossible” in parts of Ukraine, Ambassador Anatoly Antonov has said.
The US is using the Ukrainian battlefield as a dump site for its outdated weapons, Russia’s ambassador to Washington has said, warning that the country will become a graveyard for “lethal waste.”
After the White House claimed it has no plans to replenish the Pentagon’s stockpiles of controversial cluster bombs, Ambassador Anatoly Antonov said the US is “plunging lower and lower in terms of observing elementary moral principles, cynically dumping the lethal waste on Ukraine.”
“Washington wants to use [Ukraine] to dispose of its old weapons, turning the once rich and fertile part of the USSR into a ‘burial ground’ where it will be simply impossible to live,” he said. “Unexploded US submunitions will remain in this territory, as well as piles of scorched metal of the German-made Leopards and other Western materiel.”
In an interview with NBC News on Sunday, White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was asked whether President Joe Biden would continue supplying 155-millimeter cluster bombs to Ukraine. Though he stopped short of a direct answer, Sullivan said the administration is working to build up production capacity for standard 155mm artillery shells and is not looking to replenish its cluster munition stocks. …….
The decision to provide cluster bombs was controversial even for US allies, as more than 120 nations have agreed to ban the weapons due to their tendency to leave behind undetonated submunitions. The unexploded ordnance can remain live in former conflict zones for decades, posing a danger to anyone unfortunate enough to stumble across them.
While NBC’s Chuck Todd pressed Sullivan on whether the US should continue to provide “barbaric weapons” to Kiev, the senior official insisted on America’s “moral authority,” saying the White House would continue to “give Ukraine what it needs in order to not be defenseless in the face of a Russian onslaught.”
Moscow has repeatedly condemned foreign arms transfers to Ukraine, arguing they will only prolong the conflict and do little to deter its military aims. It has singled out weapons such as cluster munitions and depleted uranium rounds as especially problematic, noting they are likely to harm non-combatants in the region long after the fighting is over. https://www.rt.com/russia/579875-us-cluster-bombs-ukraine-graveyard/
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (92)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 