China « nuclear-news

IAEA and China helping Saudi Arabia with its nuclear ambitions

China and IAEA are helping Saudi Arabia achieve its nuclear ambitionsAlthough Saudi Arabia has pledged that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman said the kingdom would develop a bomb if Iran did so. The Print JONATHAN TIRONE 16 September, 2020 Vienna: The United Nations nuclear watchdog has been working in parallel with Chinese officials to help Saudi Arabia exploit uranium — the key ingredient for nuclear power and weapons — despite its inspectors being frozen out of the kingdom.

The International Atomic Energy Agency published a document ahead of its annual conference next week showing the Vienna-based organization assisting Saudi efforts to make nuclear fuel. An institute in Beijing affiliated with the IAEA has been prospecting for uranium in Saudi Arabia……..

The Saudis have stepped up their pursuit of nuclear technologies in recent years, piquing the interest of companies from South Korea to Russia and the U.S. The kingdom is nearing completion of its first reactor, a low-powered research unit being built with Argentina’s state-owned INVAP SE. It has repeatedly pledged that its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes, but Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman said the kingdom would develop a bomb if its regional rival Iran did so.

Nuclear non-proliferation experts have long warned that without adequate safeguards, IAEA technical cooperation can unwittingly help countries develop weapons capabilities………

While Saudi Arabia has been open about its ambitions to generate nuclear power, less is known about the kinds of monitoring the kingdom intends to put in place. President Donald Trump’s administration sent a letter to Saudi Arabia a year ago setting requirements to access U.S. atomic technology. The baseline for any agreement is tougher IAEA inspections that include a so-called Additional Protocol — the same monitoring standard applied in Iran and more than 130 other nations, which allows inspectors wider access to sites including uranium mines.

The kingdom is among only 31 countries worldwide that still applies an old set of IAEA regulations that don’t allow inspections. On Monday, the agency said it was beginning a new initiative to roll back those rules because they can’t provide adequate assurance that all activity is for exclusively peaceful purposes.

“I’m approaching them, telling them that in 2020 this is no longer adequate,” Grossi said. “We have to be up to a minimum standard.”

The IAEA provided financial and technical aid to develop Pakistan’s uranium mines and improve plutonium-producing reactors even after the country tested a nuclear weapon in 1998 in defiance of a non-proliferation treaty. While that aid was intended for civilian nuclear power, scientists involved in those projects said Pakistan used uranium mined with agency help for weapons.

The IAEA similarly helped North Korea develop its uranium mines before it kicked inspectors out in 2003. Syria, under investigation since 2007 for allegedly building a secret atomic-weapons reactor, used an IAEA-built lab to produce uranium ……..https://theprint.in/world/china-and-iaea-are-helping-saudi-arabia-achieve-its-nuclear-ambitions/503674/#:~:text=The%20International%20Atomic%20Energy%20Agency,for%20uranium%20in%20Saudi%20Arabia.

September 17, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, politics international, Saudi Arabia | Leave a comment

China ditches US nuclear technology in favour of home-grown alternative

China ditches US nuclear technology in favour of home-grown alternative. The US-developed AP1000 technology was once the basis of China’s third-generation nuclear power, SCMP, Echo Xie, 14 Sep, 2020

But China’s Hualong One is now the preferred option

China has switched from American nuclear power technology to a domestically developed alternative as worries over energy security and geopolitical uncertainties increase.

The AP1000 technology, designed by America’s Westinghouse Electric Company, was once the basis of China’s third-generation nuclear power, but now the country has more third-generation reactors based on its own Hualong One technology under construction or approved, than it does AP1000 reactors.

A total of 12 nuclear reactors in China – either under construction or going through the approval process – use Hualong One technology. In contrast, no new AP1000 reactors have been approved for more than a decade. The last US reactors – in Zhejiang and Shandong provinces – went into commercial operation in 2018………

However, China’s bet on nuclear power comes at a time when some European countries are phasing out its use and development in the US has stagnated. …….. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3101304/china-ditches-us-nuclear-technology-favour-home-grown

September 15, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, politics | Leave a comment

Effective nuclear arms control engagement with China – the View from Beijing

View From Beijing https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/09/09/view-from-beijing-pub-82525, Tong Zhao, Senior Fellow
Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy 11 Sept 20, Effective nuclear arms control engagement with China will likely require confidence-building measures by the United States and greater support from the international community.

All major powers must recognize that, despite their strategic competition, they have a common interest in pursuing arms control to manage that competition and minimize the risk of military conflicts. Thus, the United States should be able to engage China on arms control if it sets the right goals. But if Washington continues to present arms control as a tool to compete with Beijing, why would Beijing help?

Washington cannot coerce Beijing by threatening to start an arms race and spend China “into oblivion,” especially because Beijing is confident it can outcompete Washington in the long run. Such a threat also reinforces China’s long-standing suspicion that arms control is a concession imposed by the strong and accepted by the weak.

The United States will have to keep its public voice down while offering China concrete proposals to address the two countries’ asymmetric capabilities. If they’re to be taken seriously, these proposals should show a willingness by the United States to limit its own capabilities, particularly in areas of U.S. superiority such as air- and sea-launched missile systems and space-based capabilities.

Appeals to the United States and China by the international community for responsible behavior would also have an impact. As U.S.-China competition intensifies, both countries understand the need to win support from third parties.

Given China’s deep skepticism and outsider status in the arms control arena, engagement will require transparency and time to build confidence. One valuable starting point could be a reset of fundamental terms: China may be more eager to discuss “strategic ability” than “arms control.” Identifying cooperative measures for nuclear risk reduction would be a useful topic for initial discussions.

To proceed with substantive talks, Beijing would need reassurance that Washington accepts a relationship of mutual vulnerability and does not seek to challenge its strategic nuclear deterrence. China’s concern over U.S. missile defense, if left unaddressed, would remain the strongest external driver of its comprehensive nuclear modernization. Perhaps the two parties could agree to a joint study on the technical feasibility of making the U.S. system capable only of defending against North Korean strategic missiles without undermining China’s nuclear retaliation capacity.

In China’s highly centralized political system, in which arms control experts are scattered and do not have a strong voice, the blessing of top political leadership is key to generating momentum for arms control talks. World leaders should engage with President Xi Jinping directly: his support, even a merely symbolic endorsement of the concept of arms control, would help start a much-needed domestic discussion.

September 12, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

India and China both have a nuclear no-first-use policy- nuclear war between them is less likely

India–China border dispute: the curious incident of a nuclear dog that didn’t bark, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Ramesh Thakur, Manpreet Sethi, September 7, 2020 On June 15, nuclear-armed China and India fought with fists, rocks, and clubs along the world’s longest un-demarcated and contested boundary. Twenty Indian soldiers were killed; Indian estimates put the Chinese dead at around 40. The two countries remain in a state of military standoff.

Like the case of the dog that didn’t bark, which interested the great fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, the nuclear dimension of the recent border clashes was conspicuous by its invisibility. This may be in part because of the nuclear no-first-use policy expressed in the official nuclear doctrines of both countries. At a time when geopolitical tensions are high in several potential nuclear theaters, the nuclear arms control architecture is crumbling, and a new nuclear arms race is revving, there is a critical need to look for ideas that can prevent potential crises from escalating. Other nuclear powers can learn from China’s and India’s nuclear policies.

The normalization of nuclear threats. Over the last few years, leaders of many of the nuclear weapons states have taken to nuclear bluster. After the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis and annexation of Crimea in 2014, facing hostile Western criticism, Russian President Vladimir Putin pointedly remarked, “Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations”—a subtle but clear nuclear warning to the West. In July 2016, asked in Parliament if she would be prepared to authorize a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 people, British Prime Minister Theresa May unwaveringly answered, “Yes.” And who can forget the tit-for-tat exchange of belligerent rhetoric by US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in 2017 before the blossoming of their bromance in 2018?

In February 2019, after an attack on Indian paramilitary forces at Pulwama led to a clash between the air forces of India and Pakistan, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan warned of the possibility of a nuclear war. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, caught in the heat of an election campaign, responded that India’s nukes were not reserved for celebrating the fireworks festival of Diwali. After India revoked Kashmir’s autonomous status that August, Khan reiterated that nuclear war was a real risk. His foreign minister repeated the warning in Geneva later that same year.

This rhetoric, besides being dangerous, has given rise to another problem. The more the leaders of the nuclear armed states revalidate the role of nuclear weapons in their national security, the more they embolden calls of nuclear weapons acquisition in other countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea and Australia.

China and India’s nuclear reticence. This is where China and India, in the midst of a military crisis, provide a striking contrast. Neither side has drawn attention to its nuclear weapons in the 2020 border clashes. Nor have many analysts across the globe expressed alarm that the prolonged state of disquiet between the two could spiral out of control into a nuclear exchange……….

China, India, and no first use. An important dimension, however, that has been underestimated in explaining the two countries’ apparent nuclear sobriety is the similarity in their approach to nuclear weapons and deterrence.

They are the only two of the nine nuclear armed states with the stated commitment to a no-first-use policy, and the force postures to match. …….

In 2014, China and India called for negotiations on a no-first-use convention among the world’s nuclear powers. It might be time for the United States and other countries to give it a serious look. Indeed, the China–India border standoff demonstrates the practical utility of a nuclear policy centered on no-first-use and merits wider international attention. https://thebulletin.org/2020/09/india-china-border-dispute-the-curious-incident-of-a-nuclear-dog-that-didnt-bark/

September 8, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, India, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

“Super Swarm” drones- weaponry as destructive as nuclear weapons

US, China Developing “Super Swarm” Drones With Destruction Power Equivalent To Nuclear Weapons, https://eurasiantimes.com/us-china-developing-super-swarm-drones-with-destruction-power-equivalent-to-nuclear-weapons/ August 28, 2020, EurAsian Times Global Desk

With the US and China leading the development of swarming drone capabilities, they are now looking at not just swarming techniques but also counter swarming tactics. Experts have argued that some drones that are under development are capable of sufficient destructive power to count as Weapons of Mass Destruction.

According to Isaac Kaminer, an engineering professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School who is an expert in the subject of swarming and counter swarming tactics, large-scale adversarial swarms are already an imminent threat. He suggested that stopping a swarm is not simply a matter of driving enough missiles or bullets at it; instead, the swarm has to be outsmarted.

“A swarm with 10,000 or more drones must have extremely high levels of autonomy,” said consultant Zak Kallenborn talking to the Forbes. “No human being could handle the amount of information necessary to make decisions.“

Kaminer defines a ‘Super Swarm’ with large numbers and multiple modes like air, surface, and subsurface threats. The US Navy has already performed offensive swarm operations with its LOCUST drone swarm developed by Raytheon.

According to the developer of LOCUST drone swarm, dozens of small unmanned aircraft systems fly together, filling the sky. Some are collecting information. Some are identifying ground targets. Others might attack the same targets.

“They fly together like a flock of birds, tracking their positions and maintaining their relative positions in the air. Human operators are not needed for every flying drone; instead, they direct the flock as one.”

Currently, the drones are controlled remotely by humans which limits the capabilities both due to the demand for personnel and bandwidth restrictions. Only a few numbers can be used. However, if swarming algorithms are developed it would allow the drones to control itself and hence much larger number can be used increasing its lethality.

It works similar to a swarm of birds or insects. Every member adheres to the same rules to follow cohesion without colliding with each other. This will allow it to work without any central control.

David Hambling, who is also the author of ‘Swarm Troopers: How small drones will conquer the world’, wrote that such a swarm can be defeated by taking advantage of its internal rules – if these can be figured out.

“For example, an entire swarm whose members all have a collision-avoidance rule can be ‘herded’ by a few outsider drones or may be fooled into running into each other. If the members of the swarm are all programmed to attack what they see as the highest-value target in range, then they can all be decoyed into attacking the same dummy.”

The biggest challenge for the US comes from China who is also developing swarming capability as a means of asymmetric warfare, to counterpoise the US advantage in aircraft carriers. Last year, satellite images posted on the Chinese internet displayed a lineup of several drones including the Sharp Sword stealth drone and the Wing Loong Reaper.

Considering the fast pace of development of such technologies it is important to have international laws in place. “The opportunity to develop global norms and treaties around drone swarms and other autonomous weapons is now, “ says Kallenborn. “Collective limits on the number of armed drones in a swarm would reduce the risk to civilians and national security.”

August 29, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, Reference, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

The Chinese viewpoint on nuclear deterrence and cyberattacks

Nuclear deterrence needed to prevent cyberattacks from paralyzing China’s nuclear response https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1198665.shtml

By Qin An Source: Global Times 2020/8/24 The US’ maximum pressure campaign against China now has extended to cyberspace. After the Trump administration’s ban of TikTok and the Clean Network program that aims at Chinese companies, news on Sunday said that TikTok plans to sue the Trump administration over its executive order banning the app. As the game goes viral, there are concerns about whether the US will launch a cyberattack against China. Will China and the US actually cut off the network connection between them?

Such concerns do not come from nowhere. In 2019 alone, there were three major cyberattacks related to the US. In March 2019, Venezuela’s national power grid collapsed. The country’s president denounced the attack as a well planned cyberattack by the US. This indicates that cyberwarfare has become a new mode of undeclared warfare – an invisible invasion of sorts.

In June 2019, Trump announced retaliation against Iran with a cyberattack too. This showed that cyberwarfare has moved from the backstage to the front lines, from covert warfare to a declaration of war, and from auxiliary fighting to mainstream combat.

On November 4, 2019, the US invited a number of countries to hold the first ever joint cyberattack and defense exercise with the island of Taiwan. It undertook cyberattack scenarios as a new approach to go beyond beach landings and targeting financial systems. It focused on persistent and chaotic destructive attacks on key infrastructure and economic systems. This indicates that the US has crossed the bottom line of the one-China principle in cyberspace.

From late June to mid-July this year, some “mysterious explosions” occurred in Iran’s strategic facilities causing more than 100 casualties at power plants, nuclear facilities, chemical plants and ammunition depots. Cyber sabotage from Israel and the US were believed to be involved.

This series of actions and events show that the US has not only the ability to paralyze a society through cyberattacks but also the proven will to do so. Will the US use this ability against China? It’s completely possible. But the two countries might not disconnect their network.

Although US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has listed the “clean networks,” the US’ are the ones who are the most unclean. At present, the Chinese enterprises subject to unilateral sanctions by the US are innocent, and their technologies and products are safe as well. The US is fully aware of this. Besides for the US, disconnecting the network with China will actually cut off the easy path to attack China.

However, China must consider how to deal with “disconnection” and take primary precautions mainly in three aspects.

First, it must strengthen the awareness of network crisis. With the advent of the internet age, the international structure is experiencing subversive changes. Sovereign states have entered into an era of “stabilizing and governing with big data.” The network’s characteristics have increasingly made this concept more prominent: The internet can be used to kill people and overthrow a country.

Second, we must optimize the power structure. Cyberspace has become the fifth dimensional battlefield besides land, sea, sky and space. Although ordinary users form the frontline of defense in cyberspace, cyberwarfare cannot mainly rely on “militia.” The sustainable development of a “regular cyber army” has become an important option for the construction of a country powerful in cyberspace.

Third, cyber deterrence needs to be showcased. China not only needs to be capable of launching counterattacks in cyberspace, but also must consider special situations in which other countries’ cyberattacks might affect our ability of a nuclear counterattack. We must keep nuclear deterrence to the cyberattacks that aim to paralyze our network.

Russia’s latest updated nuclear deterrence strategy lists four conditions that would trigger its implementation of nuclear strikes. In one situation, if the attack undermines its nuclear force response actions, Russia would contemplate using nuclear weapons. Cyberattacks may lead to such situation, therefore Russia’s nuclear deterrence takes cyberattacks into consideration.

The author is head of the Beijing-based Institute of China Cyberspace Strategy. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

August 25, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK relations with China at a low point; bad news for nuclear power projects

UK nuclear power: The next Huawei? DW, 21 Aug, 20Once a key part of the UK’s energy plans, nuclear power faces rising costs, cheaper renewables and domestic opposition. It also finds itself at the center of a row between London and Beijing that could prove fatal.

London’s relations with China — hailed as entering a “golden era” only four years ago — have deteriorated badly over Hong Kong, hitting a nadir when the UK finally bowed to US pressure to ditch Huawei’s involvement in its new-generation internet (5G) rollout.

In late 2019, the US published a list of companies linked to the Chinese military, and after Huawei came the China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN). The state-owned Chinese firm has invested 3.8 billion pounds (€4.1 billion, $4.3 billion) in Britain to date, mainly in the Hinkley Point nuclear plant under construction in Somerset, southwest England, and the Sizewell plant in eastern England. It is also seeking UK regulatory approval to build its own nuclear reactor at Bradwell in Essex, east of London.

China warned the UK it would face “consequences if it chooses to be a hostile partner” after London announced its Huawei’s decision. Liu Xiaoming, the Chinese ambassador to the UK, reportedly said China could cut its backing for UK nuclear plants altogether.

Years of Chinese involvement in UK nuclear industry

CGN’s involvement in the UK nuclear industry began in 2016 when a deal was signed with French state-owned utility Electricite de France (EdF) to collaborate on three reactors totaling 8.7 gigawatts (GW) of power generation, starting with Hinkley Point. The agreement spoke of CGN’s “progressive entry” into the UK’s “resurgent” nuclear ambitions.

The UK currently has 15 operational nuclear reactors at seven locations. At its height in 1997, 26% of the country’s power was generated from nuclear, but this has slipped since to 19%.

In the Sizewell and Hinkley projects, CGN is providing cash, holding 66% stakes, but with Bradwell it wants to build the reactor itself, using its own technology, and it wants to operate it. Observers say Bradwell is the prize CGN is really seeking: the first Chinese-built nuclear plant outside China.

In May, EdF outlined its plans to start work on Sizewell by the end of next year. The project would create 25,000 jobs, it said.

But EdF’s continued involvement could be thrown into doubt if no other investor came forward to replace CGN. This is especially troubling given the project is also expected to result in cost overrun. Hinkley Point now costs about 3 billion pounds more than the 20 billion pounds originally planned. Sizewell is also slated to cost 20 billion pounds.

“Several projects were planned but only Hinkley Point will likely go ahead,” Jonathan Marshall, Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), told DW. “Bradwell would be a Chinese project, but is now unlikely for political reasons.”

Bradwell looks surplus to requirements for the reasons the National Infrastructure Assessment (NIC), a government advisory body, outlined in its most recent long-term assessment: “Given the balance of cost and risk, a renewables-based system looks a safer bet at present than constructing multiple new nuclear power plants,” it read.

Financing of nuclear plans unclear

“Sizewell is not dependent on CGN investment,” a spokesman from the the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) said.

But not many agree. “Equity funding for nuclear power stations is very difficult for private actors,” Rob Gross, director of the UK Energy Research Centre, told DW. The government’s offer in 2018 to Hitachi to take a third of the equity at the Wylfa nuclear project wasn’t enough to keep the company interested, for example.

As Paul Dorfman of University College London’s energy institute and founder of the Nuclear Consulting Group told environmental news platform electrictyinfo.org, it was hard to see who else might invest in Sizewell if the Chinese pull out. “The market won’t touch nuclear with a barge pole. You only see nuclear being built in command-and-control economies, like China and Russia, and a few outliers,” he said.

One option would be for the government to take either a majority or minority stake in Sizewell. Another option is a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model, where consumers are charged a fixed price to cover infrastructure costs. But this would hike energy prices in the long term and make it politically hard to justify. …….https://www.dw.com/en/uk-nuclear-power-the-next-huawei/a-54631808

August 22, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | business and costs, China, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

China feels India’s nuclear weapons programme driven by prestige: US report

China feels India’s nuclear weapons programme driven by prestige: US reportThe Carnegie report stressed China’s views on the issue are largely unknown

Web Desk August 19, 2020 The continuing tension over the Line of Actual Control near Ladakh between India and China has shown few signs of abating. Both China and India maintain large numbers of troops and equipment in the region.

The Chinese state-run media continues to play up deployment of new artillery and other weapon systems near the border with India. However, despite the tension, references to nuclear weapons have been subdued in both nations.

A US think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, on August 19 published a report on the Chinese perspective on nuclear weapons in the context of ties with India.

The Carnegies report noted while India’s perspectives on nuclear weapons are “relatively well documented,” China’s views on the issue are largely unknown.

The Carnegie report is based on interviews with “dozen Chinese academics, researchers, and military officers who work either on South Asia or on nuclear policy” and review of Chinese literature published in the last decade……..

Nukes for prestige?

On the issue of India’s nuclear weapons, the Chinese experts interviewed in the Carnegie report felt the systems are “for general deterrence and not for actual employment”……….

The experts interviewed in the Carnegie study felt a border conflict between India and China was unlikely to escalate into a nuclear exchange. Both India and China have declared ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons.

………. The US factor

A point of concern expressed by the Chinese analysts was the possibility of India and the US strengthening strategic ties.

“While Chinese analysts largely dismiss India’s homegrown development of new military capabilities, they express concern about the prospect of US-India collaboration on defence projects. Chinese experts are particularly wary of US-India missile defence cooperation and the possibility that it could create a networked system. If such a system was to emerge, they would see India as a de facto security ally of the United States,” the Carnegie report noted. https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2020/08/19/china-feels-indias-nuclear-weapons-programme-driven-by-prestige-us-report.html

August 20, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, India, politics international | Leave a comment

USA’s nuclear weapons – not the best way to protect Taiwan

Do US Nuclear Weapons Help Protect Taiwan?, Union of Concerned Scientists

GREGORY KULACKI, CHINA PROJECT MANAGER AND SENIOR ANALYST | AUGUST 17, 2020, In an earlier post I explained there is a risk the United States and China could go to war over Taiwan. The United States is prepared to use nuclear weapons to win that war. Some believe that helps protect Taiwan. But does it?

Shall we play a game?

At the end of the 1983 movie War Games, a massive US Department of Defense computer plays out every possible nuclear war scenario looking for a way to win. All of them lead to the same dismal end; a global nuclear holocaust. The computer concludes nuclear war is “a strange game” where “the only winning move is not to play.”

Six months after the movie was released, US President Ronald Reagan told a joint session of Congress, “A nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” He repeated it many times afterwards, including in a speech at Fudan University in Shanghai. Unfortunately, US war gamers never let go of the idea that a nuclear war can be won, especially if the adversary is China.

I can understand why. China has a few hundred nuclear weapons. The United States has thousands. The United States also has what are called tactical, non-strategic or low-yield nuclear weapons that China does not have. Some US officials argue if the United States used these low-yield nuclear weapons it would be difficult for China to retaliate without risking escalation to a full scale nuclear war: a war China would lose because its arsenal is so small. They seem to believe China would be unwilling to take that risk even though China has promised to retaliate if attacked with any type of nuclear weapon.

Limited nuclear war

The reason the US war planners think about using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan war is because the United States might lose a conventional fight. They worry China’s conventional forces cannot be stopped without nuclear weapons. This isn’t a new concern. President Eisenhower faced a similar choice during the Taiwan Strait Crisis of the 1950s. …….

Past and prologue

Today, the rapid deterioration of US-China relations, disturbing changes in Chinese policy towards Hong Kong and a provocative visit of a US official to Taiwan suggest a new crisis is brewing. As talk of a new Cold War with China increases, a careful look back at the old one may be helpful. ……..

history suggests more nations may be willing to support a US military effort to defend Taiwan if the United States took the option to start a nuclear war off the table. It may seem counterintuitive, but canceling plans to reintroduce US tactical nuclear weapons into Asia and declaring the United States would never use nuclear weapons first, under any circumstances, may be the best way to strengthen Taiwan’s defense. https://allthingsnuclear.org/gkulacki/do-us-nuclear-weapons-help-protect-taiwan

August 18, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

EDF denies that China has increasingly big role in UK’s Hinkley Point nuclear project

EDF Denies Rising Chinese Influence at U.K. Nuclear Site, Bloomberg, By Corinne Gretler, July 26, 2020,

Chinese partner’s role bigger than disclosed, Telegraph said
EDF said allegations are ‘untrue,’ CGN’s role not increasing

Electricite de France SA denied a media report that China General Nuclear Power Corp.’s role at a U.K. nuclear site is increasing, underlining the growing tensions about China’s involvement in critical infrastructure.

The company understated the number of Chinese personnel on site and leaned heavily on CGN’s expertise in planning and construction, the Sunday Telegraph reported, citing company documents and unidentified sources. The newspaper also said Chinese engineers proposed a way to lift a concrete dome onto the reactor at Hinkley Point C that would’ve involved dangling the heavy structure above workers, before it was deemed too dangerous…………

EDF owns about two-thirds of the Hinkley Point program while CGN holds the rest. The project was approved in 2016. The Tories have demanded a review of the plant, the Telegraph said, citing former Conservative leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith saying ministers were misled when they approved China’s role as just a financial partner in the project. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-26/dalio-warns-of-u-s-china-capital-war-that-would-hit-dollar

July 27, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, France, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

China’s government-run nuclear institutions are experiencing a brain drain.

Mass resignations at state-run nuclear institute alarms China https://www.wionews.com/world/mass-resignations-at-state-run-nuclear-institute-alarms-china-315515

WION Beijing, China Jul 23, 2020, Edited By: Palki Sharma

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Reportedly, ‘China’s best minds’ had access to extremely sensitive information and their sudden resignation has raised many conspiracies and theories regarding the exodus. A crisis has erupted in a major Chinese research institute in the form of mass resignation of 90 nuclear scientists. The Communist Party has launched an investigation after calling it ”brain drain”.

However, the incident has become a major concern because of the massive number that have tendered their resignation.

”China’s best minds” reportedly had access to extremely sensitive information and their sudden resignation has raised many conspiracy theories regarding the exodus.

The scientists of the Institute of Nuclear Energy Safety Technology(INEST) in China’s eastern city of Hefei are now in the headlines.

This institute is part of the Hefei institutes of physical science that’s under the state-run Chinese Academy of Sciences – China’s top research body.

INEST specialises in advanced nuclear energy and safety technology which participates in more than 200 national and international projects.

It has about 600 members and 80 per cent of the researchers have PhD degrees. Last year, INEST was in the news for developing a virtual nuclear power planet, something that can be used for safety assessment.

However, the tables have turned and some serious systemic issues have come to light due to this year’s incident. In June, INEST employees clashed with the staff of their parent institute. Reports say they fought over who gets to control access to their facilities.

As per a theory, the institute was unable to get big projects due to lack of funding and the researchers were poached by private companies. China’s Vice Premier Liu He has announced that a team will be sent to investigate the mass resignations.

The seriousness of event can also be assessed by the fact that 90 out of the 500 members have left. Last year, the figure had dropped to 200, it is now believed that only 100 researchers work there.

The fact is that scientific research in China is largely in the hands of state-run universities and research institutes. While outwardly the premise of research and innovation is the freedom to explore, it is controlled by Beijing and managed by the Communist Party of China.

The jobs at state-run institutes promised stability, better benefits but young researchers are now more than willing to give up these jobs and move to the private sector for more money and more freedom.

The state run institutions are the like brain trust of China and now they are witnessing a brain drain.

July 25, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, employment | Leave a comment

Britain’s Conservatives anxious to review UK’s nuclear build co-operation with China

Tory hawks press button on nuclear power battle with China, After Huawei, energy sector looks set to be next flashpoint in Sino-British relations, Ft.com, Jim Pickard, Daniel Thomas and Nathalie Thomas-20 July 20

After securing a de facto ban on Huawei from winning future business in the UK, hawkish Conservative MPs have turned their sights on other Chinese investments — with the nuclear industry set to become the next flashpoint.

Over the past decade of a so-called “golden era” of Sino-British relations, initiated by former Tory chancellor George Osborne, Chinese companies snapped up an estimated $80bn of UK assets.

They range from the manufacturer of the famous London black cabs to a wind farm in Norfolk, various property deals and stakes in various football clubs, including Southampton.

The buying spree saw a range of household names change hands such as the 2014 takeover of PizzaExpress by private equity group Hony Capital; Thomas Cook, the travel operator that collapsed last year; and breakfast cereal maker Weetabix, since sold to US investors. ……..

The energy sector looks set to become the next battleground in Sino-British relations. Although there has been a frenzy of activity by Chinese companies across wind and solar farms, the China critics have their sights set on the highly sensitive nuclear power sector with the focus on state-owned China General Nuclear.

CGN, which has already invested £3.8bn in the UK nuclear sector, is a junior funding partner for the new Hinkley Point power station in Somerset being built by France’s EDF, and is also involved with the French company’s other proposed plant at Sizewell in Suffolk.

But it is CGN’s third nuclear power project — a new station at Bradwell in Essex where it is the majority partner — that the Tory backbenchers want blocked. The Chinese company wants to use its own reactor technology and is hoping to receive design approval from the UK regulator in the next 18 months.

Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith is one of the leading voices pushing for the government to review the group’s involvement in the UK. CGN has been blacklisted by the Trump administration in Washington over allegations of stealing US technology for potential military use. https://www.ft.com/content/58f7a0bf-da3b-4e9f-a1a1-2c9789904a1b

July 21, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Why did over 90 nuclear safety scientists resign en masse from an institute under the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)?

90 CAS nuclear scientists who resigned were allegedly ‘poached’
Source: Global Times 2020/7 More than 90 nuclear safety scientists with an institute under the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) resigned enmasse according to media reports, with the unusual high number of resignation drawing public attention, considering the essential service the scientists provide.

An employee at the Institute of Nuclear Energy Safety Technology (INEST) under The Hefei Institutes of Physical Science (CASHIPS) of CAS said the more than 90 researchers who voluntarily left their jobs were “poached” and the resignations were part of “normal staff turnover,” the Shanghai-based news website thepaper.cn reported Thursday.

The employee didn’t identify which company or institute may have recruited the researchers.

INEST, located in Hefei, capital of Central China’s Anhui Province, a hub of China’s scientists, has about 600 members and 80 percent of researchers have PhD degrees, according to the institute’s website………Earlier media reports show the resignations were triggered by a conflict with new security staff hired in mid-June at INEST.

According to the official website, INEST was established in September 2011. It is devoted to the design and R&D of advanced nuclear energy and safety technology, and also an independent nuclear safety assessment center with the aim of promoting the sustainable development of nuclear science and technology.

The employee said the 90-plus researchers submitted their resignations in June. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1194812.shtml

July 18, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, employment | 1 Comment

UK Ministers losing enthusiasm for small nuclear reactors developed with China

Ministers cool on Chinese nuclear reactors John Collingridge

Sunday July 12 2020,, The Sunday Times A Chinese-backed plan to build small nuclear reactors in Britain has been snubbed, in the latest sign of the chill in Anglo-Sino relations.

DBD, a Cheshire-based engineering firm, was working with China’s Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology to build a fleet of gas-cooled small reactors, and had hoped to win government funds. However, ministers have awarded £10m each to three rival projects — including an experimental plan for a fusion reactor. A version of the DBD reactor has already been built in China. DBD declined to comment……. (subscribers only) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-cool-on-chinese-nuclear-reactors-k2m8j76qf

July 13, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | China, politics international, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Britain’s nuclear future in trouble, aging reactors, and not enough money without China’s help

Britain’s Nuclear Future Uncertain as Relations With China Fray, https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/britains-nuclear-future-uncertain-as-relations-with-china-fray Rachel Morison and William Mathis, Bloomberg) 8 July 20, — Britain’s fraying relationship with China has the potential to undo a decade of mixed efforts to keep nuclear power flowing as an aging generation of plants drop out of service.

Once the heart of the U.K.’s energy plans, nuclear has been sidelined by spiraling costs and cheaper renewables. It also finds itself at the center of a diplomatic row spanning trade and human rights that threatens to undermine how the sector is financed.

Relations between China and the U.K. have been strained as the row over Huawei Technologies Co. intensified. When sweeping new national security laws were introduced in Hong Kong Prime Minister Boris Johnson offered its citizens the right to live and work in Britain.

China warned the U.K. Monday it’ll face “consequences” if it chooses to be a “hostile partner” after it emerged the government is planning to phase out the company’s equipment in the U.K.’s 5G telecommunications networks.

For nuclear, the sticking point has become the once-feted relationship with China General Nuclear Power Corp. that’s supposed to deliver the next generation of large nuclear plants. That link has come into sharp focus as the U.K. scrambles to find a funding model for projects that aren’t getting any cheaper.

Without CGN, its money and its technology, the U.K. will be left with a huge funding gap that other investors don’t seem willing to fill. It’ll also leave the country’s nuclear plans in disarray.

Equity funding for nuclear power stations is very difficult for private actors,” said Rob Gross, director of the U.K. Energy Research Centre. The risks are significant, timescales long and individual projects are very large. That’s why governments have always played a role in nuclear power, he said.

CGN’s involvement in Britain’s nuclear industry started in 2016 when a deal was signed with Electricite de France SA to cooperate on a trio of reactors totaling 8.7 gigawatts starting with Hinkley Point C in southwest England.

Nuclear remains important for the British government but it’s becoming increasingly pushed to the margins of energy policy as cheaper wind and solar have taken center stage.

Nuclear power has traditionally been seen as a low-carbon way of supplementing renewables — and as such a key part of the future energy mix envisioned in a net zero world.

Losing nuclear power probably wouldn’t pose a threat to the U.K.’s ability to generate enough power. The gap could be filled by gas, batteries or small modular reactors that can provide back-up to renewable energy and keep the lights on.

The sector is also important to the country as a way of building a large, skilled workforce and creating a supply chain using British companies.

False Starts

In 2017, ministers envisioned building 18 gigawatts of new projects but one by one each project folded, unable to negotiate the financing, leaving just EDF and CGN.

The government’s offer in 2018 to Hitachi to take a third of the equity at the Wylfa nuclear project wasn’t enough to keep the company interested.

How best to finance the technology, which costs billions, has become the latest hump in the road for policymakers. The Hinkley Point reactors – expected to start producing power by 2025 – have been hit by delays and cost overruns.

“The precise funding model for nuclear is up to the government to decide,” an EDF spokesman said.

That project will now cost as much as 22.5 billion pounds ($28.1 billion), taking into account inflation, and the guaranteed price of power is significantly higher than the latest round of offshore wind projects. Sizewell-C, still in the planning process, is slated to cost 20 billion pounds.

EDF is struggling and can’t afford to finance Sizewell on its own. The utility has cut costs and jobs, and pared investments setting out a plan to divest at least 10 billion euros of assets from 2015 to 2020 to help fund its share of Hinkley Point.

* CGN’s investment is in the planning and development stage only for Sizewell whereas it is involved in the construction of Hinkley.

The industry favors paying for the massive projects through a Regulated Asset Base model, a proven success on other infrastructure projects. The previous Conservative government was thought to back the financing option but the idea looks to be losing traction.

“If the Chinese pull out, then Sizewell will still go ahead but EDF will be unable to take on another major project,” Elchin Mammadov, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst, said “So, Bradwell will be dead or put on hold for another decade.”

The debate has gone quiet following a consultation on the RAB model which closed in October.

RAB likely wouldn’t transfer enough risk from the project’s backers — EDF and CGN. The government would have to offer some kinds of guarantee on the project in order to get private investors to finance it.

One option would be for the government to take either a majority or minority stake in Sizewell C..

I wouldn’t be surprised if what is adopted is either a model with many of the characteristics of RAB, or potentially consideration of a more direct stake. This is about reducing the cost of capital.” said Tom Greatrex, chief executive officer of the Nuclear Industry Association.

But despite the long delays, there’s no indication that the government’s made up its mind how it will proceed.

“We are currently considering responses to inform the best approach to the financing of future nuclear projects,” a spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy said.

As much as 80% of electricity will be produced from low carbon sources by 2030, according to scenarios modeled by the U.K.’s Committee on Climate Change.

“With all but one of the nuclear fleet set to retire by 2030, and uncertainty over the scale of the new build program, it is likely that more electricity from renewable sources will be needed,” said Jonathan Marshall, head of analysis at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit.

July 9, 2020 Posted by Christina MacPherson | business and costs, China, politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries