La Hague reprocessing plant: expansion and continued operation until at least 2100
Last week, the Élysée Palace confirmed that the French reprocessing
plant at La Hague is to be expanded. Extensive investments are planned in
this context. There have already been plans since 2020 to build another
storage pool on the plant site.
At La Hague, there is still radioactive
waste from Germany, which may be returned this year. It was actually just a
side note: The Conseil de Politique Nucléaire (Nuclear Policy Council),
which was founded in 2023 and met at the Elysée Palace last Monday,
confirmed the prospect of major investments at La Hague in order to extend
the lifespan of the facilities until at least 2100.
Corresponding press
reports were confirmed by the Elysée Palace on Tuesday: The Council had
“confirmed the major guidelines of French policy on the nuclear fuel cycle,
which combines reprocessing, reuse of spent fuel and closing the cycle”,
the La Hague site would “be the subject of major investment”. No specific
timetables or amounts were mentioned in this context.
GRS 12th March 2024
And Israel? Macron to propose ‘Olympic ceasefire’ for Ukraine conflict
17 Mar 2024 , https://www.sott.net/article/489864-And-Israel-Macron-to-propose-Olympic-ceasefire-for-Ukraine-conflict
French President Emmanuel Macron has said he will propose a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine during the Summer Olympic Games, set to take place in Paris between July 26 and August 11.
In an interview with Ukrainian media on Saturday, Macron was asked whether France, as the host of the games this year, will follow tradition and seek “a ceasefire during the Olympics.” The journalist was apparently referring to the Olympic Truce, a period of conflict cessation which historically began seven days before the games and ended seven days after so that the athletes could safely travel to and from the Olympics.
“It will be requested,” the French leader responded.
“The rule of the host country is to move in step with the Olympic movement,” the French leader said when asked about his views on the situation in which Russian athletes are allowed to participate under a neutral flag.
“This is a message of peace. We will also follow the decision of the Olympic Committee,” he added.
Comment: Will Israeli athletes also be forced to attend under a neutral flag or be banned altogether by the IOC?
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) originally banned Russian and Belarusian athletes from competing internationally, following the escalation of the military conflict in Ukraine in February 2022. Last year, however, the blanket ban was reconsidered by the organization, and conditions were set to allow individuals, but not the teams, to participate provided that they do so under a neutral flag.
The decision prompted an outcry from Kiev, with President Vladimir Zelensky calling for a complete boycott of the games. However, Ukraine later softened its stance and permitted its athletes to compete as long as the Russians and Belarusians were only present as neutral athletes.
While Moscow condemned the IOC’s requirements, calling them “unreasonable, legally void and excessive”, the head of the Russian Olympic Committee, Stanislav Pozdnyakov, confirmed on Thursday that this year’s Olympics in Paris would not be shunned, despite the restriction.
“We will never take the path of boycotting (the Games). We will always support our athletes,” he told RIA Novosti.
Comment: The French president would likely want to buy some time so that the Western partners have more time to rearm Ukraine and train yet another army. That wish for a ceasefire is unlikely to be granted by Russia.
One wonders why the French president wasn’t asked about a ceasefire in Israel.
Macron has in the recent weeks done made sure to get some time in the limelight, but it hasn’t quite worked out and he might have shown himself to be delusional if not also untrustworthy. See also:
Macron leads the way to Western civilization’s suicideMajority disagree with Macron’s comments on sending NATO troops to Ukraine – poll
There is no such thing as a “nuclear waste-eating” reactor
Contrary to popular belief, the French nuclear industry is by no means “triumphant”, “the best in the world” or “at the cutting edge of technology”: in fact, EDF (bankrupt), Areva (renamed Orano after filing for bankruptcy) and CEA (subsidized by public money) are constantly making fools of themselves and leaving the French with astronomical bills.
A magic reactor killed by environmentalists?
By Stéphane Lhomme by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/17/a-magic-reactor-killed-by-environmentalists/
On the contrary, a “nuclear waste-eating reactor” does not exist
Appearing as a guest on several TV channels (BFM, Cnews, etc.), a certain Fabien Bouglé managed to fool both viewers and journalists (most of whom are totally ignorant about nuclear power) with a series of fibs, each more enormous than the last. Here are a few clarifications.
There is no such thing as a “nuclear waste-eating” reactor
The smooth-talking Bouglé left his ignorant interlocutors stunned and bewildered as he talked about “waste-eating” reactors that would have already solved the radioactive waste issue if an infamous green lobby, “betraying France to Germany” (sic!), hadn’t “prevented” the advent of such reactors.
So, like throwing a log on the fire, all you have to do is put the radioactive waste produced by today’s power plants into a “magic” reactor, and the waste will disappear.
Mr. Bouglé finally divulged his “secret”: the so-called “waste-eating” reactors are simply… breeder reactors: a type of reactor that the global nuclear industry has failed to operate for 70 years, like Superphénix in France! And, even if it did work, it would in no way eliminate radioactive waste. What’s more, less than 1% of nuclear fuel (the most radioactive waste) could theoretically have its lifespan reduced, but without disappearing and while becoming even more radioactive! In the nuclear industry, as elsewhere, miracles do not exist.
The Astrid project was not “on the way to success” and was not “taken over by Bill Gates”
Despite its pretty name, the Astrid reactor project was nothing more than a little Superphénix: a sodium-cooled breeder reactor. Look at the “progress”: 40 years after the launch of Superphénix (1240 MW), the CEA wanted to make another attempt with a reactor half as powerful (600 MW), before giving up altogether.
Japan’s Monju fast-breeder reactor was definitively shut down after countless failures, a terrible fire and sodium leaks; Germany’s Kalkar fast-breeder reactor was never commissioned; and the USA has abandoned the sector. Only Russia manages to keep its BN800 hobbling along… but it doesn’t perform any of the miracles expected of it (producing “more fissile material than it consumes”, “eating” radioactive waste and other nonsense).
As for Bill Gates, he’s one of the dummies who, in recent years, have announced various types of miraculous reactors, always claiming to be able to produce electricity “cheaply, safely and with little waste” (blah blah blah). Beginning in 2006, Bill Gates and his company Terrapower first tried to make a “travelling wave” reactor work, then a “molten salt” one, both abandoned after wasting billions. Now Gates is dreaming of developing… a sodium-cooled fast-neutron reactor: back to Superphénix and 70 years of failure for the global nuclear industry.
France’s nuclear woes are caused by… France’s nuclear woes!
The “evil anti-nuclear environmentalists” and the so-called “traitors in the pay of Germany” denounced by Inspector Bouglé have nothing to do with the disasters of French nuclear power: EDF, Areva (now Orano) and the CEA are doing just fine on their own! For example:
- Industrial and financial disasters at the EPR sites in Finland, Flamanville and England: 15 to 20 years (instead of four and a half) to build a reactor costing 20 billion Euros instead of 3 billion, and with serious defects.
- The unprecedented scandal of the thousands of defective parts (including the famous Flamanville EPR vessel) produced by Areva in its Le Creusot plants.
- Catastrophic and ruinous flops at the Iter (fusion) and RJH reactor sites.
- Stress corrosion (up to 32 reactors out of 56 shut down at the same time in 2022)
And so on.
Contrary to popular belief, the French nuclear industry is by no means “triumphant”, “the best in the world” or “at the cutting edge of technology”: in fact, EDF (bankrupt), Areva (renamed Orano after filing for bankruptcy) and CEA (subsidized by public money) are constantly making fools of themselves and leaving the French with astronomical bills.
The Fessenheim closure is not the cause of electricity shortages in France and imports from Germany
Mr. Bouglé claims that France was an exporter to Germany before the closure of Fessenheim and that it has suddenly become an importer because of the plant’s closure in 2020. He’s talking nonsense.
In reality, there are exchanges (in both directions) between the two countries throughout the year. When the balance sheet is drawn up on December 31, France is still an importer from Germany (*), and has been for over 25 years (**), long before Fessenheim was shut down.
This phenomenon is mainly due to the absurd choice of electric heating, developed on a massive scale in France to “justify” nuclear power: as soon as it gets cold, electricity consumption is such that it far exceeds the capacity of the French nuclear fleet, even when it’s working properly!
It’s also worth noting the ridiculous claim that life was wonderful in France with 58 reactors, and that it has suddenly gone into crisis with “only” 56 reactors, which in reality is an insane number. For the record, during the stress corrosion crisis, France was saved by importing massive amounts of electricity from neighboring countries, which have only a few reactors, if any at all.
(*) Of course, we can criticize the fact that a significant proportion of Germany’s electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants (even if the share of renewables is increasing exponentially), but the fact is that it’s this “dirty” electricity that heats France every winter, and French nuclear enthusiasts don’t go so far as to refuse this electricity and stay in the cold and dark!
(**) Except, very narrowly, in 2011: following the Fukushima disaster, Germany immediately shut down 8 reactors. But by 2012, France was once again a net importer from Germany.
The joke about waste-eating reactors
Let’s start by noting that nuclear reactors continually produce insane quantities of radioactive waste of various kinds, from nuclear fuel to the tools and clothing used in power plants, which are contaminated… and can’t be “eaten”!
But let’s concentrate on the most radioactive, the spent fuel that comes out of the reactor core after use.
Spent fuel comprises four types of element: plutonium, uranium, fission products and minor actinides. Note that the vast majority of radioactivity is contained in these last two categories.
To attempt reuse this waste fuel, separation work must already be carried out in a gigantic plant such as La Hague. These operations require huge amounts of electricity and using large quantities of terribly corrosive and dangerous chemicals: a far cry from the “clean” energy that could “save the planet”.
– Plutonium
Listening to Mr. Bouglé, the uninformed viewer (and the ignorant journalist) think that all they have to do is recover this fuel and put it in the so-called “waste-eating reactor”, which will make this waste disappear… while producing electricity! Jackpot, bravo and thanks for everything. But Santa Claus doesn’t exist, and it’s all poppycock. And here’s why.
It is used by the military for their atomic weapons. Some of this plutonium can be recovered to make fuel (known as “mox”) for use in today’s power plants, which exacerbates the consequences of an accident when it occurs. Various studies show that this option reduces only slightly the amount of uranium needed from mining. But in no case is this plutonium “eaten” or “incinerated”; it is almost entirely recovered after use.
– Uranium
The uranium resulting from these separation operations, known as “reprocessed uranium”, can theoretically be reused in place of mined uranium, but in reality, this option poses a number of technical problems. EDF has been trying to use it for years in its Cruas power plant (Ardèche), after re-enrichment… in Russia (thanks Putin!). But this remains very marginal, and in no case is this uranium “eaten” or “incinerated”; it is almost entirely recovered after use.
– Fission products
There’s nothing we can do with them, except vitrify them and store them for millennia!
– Minor actinides
These are the only elements of radioactive waste that could theoretically have their lifespan reduced in breeder reactors… while becoming even more radioactive! But even if such a “feat” were to happen (provided we finally manage to operate breeder reactors properly), minor actinides would not be “eaten”, “incinerated” or “disintegrated”. In fact, they are vitrified like fission products and have to be stored for millennia.
Conclusion
Of course, there is no technology that can “eat” nuclear waste. At most, it is theoretically possible (but not in practice) to degrade a tiny fraction of it, and even then, at the cost of new radioactive and chemical contamination and very high energy consumption.
Once and for all, let’s remember that there will never be a nuclear miracle, be it with magic reactors, or by replacing uranium with thorium (the thorium sector is also that of fast-breeder reactors!), or with fusion, or by calling old projects that have never worked “4th generation” or “SMR”.
Stéphane Lhomme is Director of the Nuclear Observatory.
French president Emmanuel Macron tells Putin ‘WE are a nuclear power and WE are ready’ in latest WW3 rhetoric.
- A stern Macron chastised Putin for threatening the use of nuclear devices
- It comes after Putin told state TV ‘weapons exist to be used’ earlier this week
Having nuclear weapons ‘imposes on us the responsibility never to escalate,’ Macron said, in a dig at the constant reminders issued by top Russian officials and media personalities of their nuclear arsenal.
His statements come amid a hardening of Paris’ stance towards Moscow after Macron abandoned his longstanding efforts to maintain a closer bond with Putin.
Britain and France are Europe’s only nuclear powers, but even their collective power is a fraction of that employed by Russia, which has the world’s largest and most varied collection of nuclear weapons by some margin – even larger than that in Washington’s vast stockpiles.
Speaking with French and Ukrainian media, Macron chastised Putin for threatening the use of nuclear devices and reminded him France also has an advanced weapons programme……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
For Tatiana Kastoueva-Jean, Russia specialist at the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), the change in Macron’s stance towards Putin triggered this reaction from Russia.
‘There is incomprehension (in Russia) over how someone who wants to discuss with Russia, to be the mediator, turns into someone who takes the lead of the toughest camp opposing it,’ she said. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13201319/French-president-Emmanuel-Macron-declares-nuclear-power-ready-response-Putins-threats-using-nukes-Kremlin-says-France-signalled-deeper-involvement-Ukraine.html
Cold turkeys: The demise of nuclear power
Jim Green, Mar 12, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/cold-turkeys-the-demise-of-nuclear-power-in-australias-aukus-partner-countries/
When announcing the AUKUS agreement in 2021, then Prime Minister (and secret energy minister) Scott Morrison said: “Let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to establish … a civil nuclear capability.” He also said that “a civil nuclear energy industry is not a requirement for us to go through the submarine program.”
However, Coalition Senators argued in a report last year that Australia’s “national security” would be put at risk by retaining federal legislation banning nuclear power and that the “decision to purchase nuclear submarines makes it imperative for Australia to drop its ban on nuclear energy.”
So, let’s see how nuclear power is faring in our AUKUS partners, the UK and the US.
This is a story about conventional, large reactors. All that needs to be said about ‘small modular reactors’ in the UK and the US is that none exist and none are under construction.
This is a story about conventional, large reactors. All that needs to be said about ‘small modular reactors’ in the UK and the US is that none exist and none are under construction.
The UK
The last power reactor start-up in the UK was 29 years ago — Sizewell B in 1995.
Over the past decade, several proposed new nuclear power plants have been abandoned (Moorside, Wylfa, Oldbury) and the only project to reach the construction stage is Hinkley Point C, comprising two French-designed EPR reactors.
In the late 2000s, the estimated construction cost for one EPR reactor in the UK was £2 billion (A$3.9 billion). When construction of two EPR reactors at Hinkley Point commenced in 2018 and 2019, the cost estimate for the two reactors was £19.6 billion.
The current cost estimate for the two reactors has ballooned to £46 billion (A$89 billion) or £23 billion (A$44.5 billion) per reactor. That is 11.5 times higher than the estimate in the late 2000s. Further cost overruns are certain. This is an example of the Golden Rule of Nuclear Economics: Add a Zero to Nuclear Industry Estimates.
The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for Hinkley Point — primarily in the form of a guaranteed payment of £92.50 (A$180) per megawatt-hour (2012 prices), indexed for inflation, for 35 years — could amount to £30 billion (A$58 billion) while other credible estimates put the figure as high as £48.3 billion (A$94 billion).
Delays
The delays associated with Hinkley Point have been as shocking as the cost overruns. In 2007, French utility EDF boasted that Britons would be using electricity from an EPR reactor at Hinkley Point to cook their Christmas turkeys in 2017. In 2008, the UK government said the reactors would be complete “well before 2020”.
But construction of the two reactors didn’t even begin until 2018 and 2019, respectively, at which time completion was expected in 2026. Now, completion is expected in 2030 or 2031.
Undoubtedly there will be further delays and if the reactors are completed, it will be more than a quarter of a century after the 2007 EDF boast that Britons would finally be using electricity from Hinkley Point to cook their Christmas turkeys.
Construction will take well over 10 years; planning and construction over 25 years. Yet in Australia, the Coalition argues that Australians could be cooking Christmas turkeys with nuclear power 10 years from now.
‘Something of a crisis’
Nuclear industry lobbyist Tim Yeo said in 2017 that the UK’s nuclear power program faced “something of a crisis”. The following year, Toshiba abandoned the planned Moorside nuclear power project near Sellafield despite generous offers of government support — a “crushing blow” according to Yeo.
Then in 2019, Hitachi abandoned the planned Wylfa reactor project in Wales after the estimated cost of the twin-reactor project had risen by 50 percent.
Hitachi abandoned the project despite an offer from the UK government to take a one-third equity stake in the project; to consider providing all of the required debt financing; and to consider providing a guarantee of a generous minimum payment per unit of electricity.
Long gone was the 2006 assertion from then UK industry secretary Alistair Darling that the private sector would have to “initiate, fund, construct and operate” nuclear power plants.
The UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities noted that Hitachi joined a growing list of companies and utilities backing out of the UK nuclear new-build program:
“Let’s not forget that Hitachi are not the first energy utility to come to the conclusion that new nuclear build in the UK is not a particularly viable prospect. The German utilities RWE Npower and E-on previously tried to develop the site before they sold it on Hitachi in order to protect their own vulnerable energy market share in the UK and Germany.
“British Gas owner Centrica pulled out of supporting Hinkley Point C, as did GDF Suez and Iberdrola at Moorside, before Toshiba almost collapsed after unwise new nuclear investments in the United States forced it to pull out of the Sellafield Moorside development just a couple of months ago.”
Sizewell C
The UK government hopes to progress the Sizewell C project in Suffolk, comprising two EPR reactors, and is once again offering very generous support including taking an equity stake in the project and using a ‘regulated asset base‘ model which foists financial risks onto taxpayers and could result in taxpayers paying billions for failed projects — as it has in the US.
If recent experience is any guide, the government will struggle to find corporations or utilities willing to invest in Sizewell regardless of generous government support.
(The same could be said for plans for small modular reactors or mid-sized reactors envisaged by Rolls-Royce — it is doubtful whether private finance can be secured despite generous taxpayer subsidies.)
Many reactors have been permanently shut down in the UK: the IAEA lists 36 such reactors. Since the Sizewell B reactor startup in 1995, there have been 24 permanent reactors shut-downs and zero startups.
Repeat: since the last reactor startup in the UK, there have been 24 shut-downs!
The capacity of the nine remaining reactors (5.9 gigawatts — GW) is less than half of the peak of 13 GW in the late 1990s. Nuclear power’s contribution to electricity supply has fallen from 22 percent in the early 2000s to 14.2 percent.
Meanwhile, the UK government reports that renewable power sources accounted for 44.5 percent of total UK generation in the third quarter of 2023, a higher share than fossil fuels and around three times more than nuclear’s share.
What to make of the conservative UK government’s goal of quadrupling nuclear capacity to 24 GW by 2050? It is deeply implausible. The facts speak for themselves. Two dozen reactor shutdowns and zero startups since 1995.
The Hinkley Point project has been extremely slow and extremely expensive. The Sizewell C project is uncertain. Other proposals — including proposals for small modular reactors — are even more uncertain and distant.
Unsurprisingly, the extraordinary cost overruns and delays associated with Hinkley Point have complicated plans to advance the proposed Sizewell C project.
In 2010, the UK government announced that Sizewell was one of the locations slated for new reactors. Fourteen years later, construction is some years away and it remains uncertain if the project will reach the construction stage. EDF and the UK government are seeking to raise a further £20 billion from new investors. All reasonable offers considered.
France
The Sizewell C project is equally complicated across the channel due to EDF’s massive debts and its plan to replace the EPR design with an EPR2 design, about which little is known except that safety will be sacrificed on the altar of economics. EDF’s debt as of early 2023 was €64.5 billion (A$107 billion) and it was fully nationalised later in 2023 due to its crushing debts.
In addition to its adventures across the channel, EDF has a “colossal maintenance and investment programme to fund” in France as the Financial Times noted in October 2021.
As in the UK, there has not been a single reactor startup in France since the last millennium. The only current reactor construction project is one EPR reactor under construction at Flamanville. The current cost estimate of €19.1 billion (A$31.6 billion) is nearly six times higher than the original estimate of €3.3 billion (A$5.5 billion).
Construction of the Flamanville reactor began in 2007 and it remains incomplete 17 years later. Planning plus construction have taken over a quarter of a century. Yet the Coalition argues that Australians could be cooking Christmas turkeys with nuclear power 10 years from now.
France’s nuclear industry was in its “worst situation ever“, a former EDF director said in 2016 — and the situation has worsened since then. Another former EDF director said in early 2024 that the French nuclear industry is “on a slow descent to hell” and he has “fierce doubts about EDF’s ability to build more reactors.”
The US
The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina (two AP1000 reactors) was abandoned in 2017 after the expenditure of around US$9 billion (A$13.6 billion). Construction began in 2013 and the project was abandoned in 2017.
The project was initially estimated to cost US$11.5 billion; when it was abandoned, the estimate was US$25 billion (A$38 billion).
Largely as a result of the V.C. Summer disaster, Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy in 2017 and its parent company Toshiba only avoided bankruptcy by selling its most profitable assets. Both companies decided that they would no longer take on the huge risks associated with reactor construction projects. A year earlier, Westinghouse said its goal was to win overseas orders for at least 45 AP1000 reactors by 2030.
Criminal investigations and prosecutions related to the V.C. Summer project are ongoing: the fiasco is known as the ‘nukegate’ scandal.
Vogtle
With the abandonment of the V.C. Summer project in South Carolina, the only remaining reactor construction project in the US was the Vogtle project in Georgia (two AP1000 reactors).
Construction of the Vogtle reactors began in 2013 and the expected completion dates of 2016 and 2017 were pushed back seven years to 2023 and 2024. In 2014, Westinghouse claimed a three-year construction schedule for AP1000 reactors but the Vogtle reactors took 10 and 11 years to complete.
The first licence application for the Vogtle project was submitted in 2006 so planning and construction took 17 years in addition to the time spent before the 2006 application.
The latest cost estimate for the Vogtle project is $34 billion (A$51 billion), more than twice the estimate when construction began (US$14–15.5 billion). The project only survived because of multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts.
In 2006, Westinghouse said it could build an AP1000 reactor for as little as US$1.4 billion (A$2.1 billion) — 12 times lower than the latest Vogtle estimate of US$17 billion (A$25.5 billion) per reactor. Another example of the Golden Rule of Nuclear Economics: Add a Zero to Nuclear Industry Estimates.
Corruption scandals
In 2005, the US Nuclear Energy Institute claimed that Westinghouse’s estimate of US$1,365 per kilowatt “has a solid analytical basis, has been peer-reviewed, and reflects a rigorous design, engineering and constructability assessment.”
In fact, the estimate was out by an order of magnitude and the Institute’s involvement in a raft of corruption scandals has been exposed. No doubt the Dutton Coalition would happily parrot whatever lies the Institute chose to feed them, and no doubt the Murdoch/Sky/AFR echo-chamber would happily amplify those lies.
During the ill-fated ‘nuclear renaissance’, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission received applications to build 31 reactors, but only the Vogtle and V.C. Summer projects reached the construction stage and only the twin-reactor Vogtle project was completed. Two out of 31 ain’t bad. Well it is, actually.
Thirteen reactors have been permanently shut down since 2013 with many more closures in the pipeline. The US has one of the oldest reactor fleets in the world with a mean age of 42.1 years. The mean age of the 29 reactors closed worldwide from 2018‒2022 was 43.5 years.
Around 20 unprofitable, ageing reactors have been saved by nuclear bailout funding but their future is precarious. In addition to the V.C. Summer corruption scandal, nuclear bailout programs are mired in corruption scandals (see here, here, here and here and if you’re still not convinced see here, here, and here).
Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.
Nuclear: the bill for EDF’s future EPR2 reactors is already skyrocketing
EDF has significantly increased the cost of its program to build six new
EPR2 nuclear reactors, the newspaper Les Echos reported on Monday, citing
new estimates from the company. According to Les Echos, EDF now
estimates the cost of its program to build six new EPR2 nuclear reactors at
67.4 billion euros, compared to 51.7 billion euros in an estimate made
public at the start of 2022, an amount expected to be subject to regular
updates. That’s a jump of 30%.
La Tribune 4th March 2024
Le Figaro 4th March 2024
https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/le-cout-du-nouveau-nucleaire-francais-s-envole-20240304
Macron stands by remarks on NATO troops in Ukraine
https://www.sott.net/article/489392-Macron-stands-by-remarks-on-NATO-troops-in-Ukraine— 1 Mar 24
The French president brushed off criticism from fellow NATO members, insisting his words were “thought-through and measured”
French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday stood by his controversial remarks on Monday about the prospects of deploying troops to Ukraine, which have caused uproar among some NATO members, and has insisted his words were well thought out.
Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a visit to inspect the 2024 Olympics village near Paris, Macron refused to backtrack on his statements despite a flurry of criticism from some fellow members of the US-led bloc.
“These are sufficiently serious issues; every one of the words that I say on this issue is weighed, thought-through and measured,” Macron claimed.
The French president triggered the political furore on Monday while speaking to reporters after hosting a meeting of European leaders in Paris. Macron insisted that the West should stop at nothing to prevent Russia from getting the upper hand in the conflict, saying the deployment of troops by NATO and other Western countries to Ukraine could not be ruled out.
“There’s no consensus today to send, in an official manner, troops on the ground,” he said. “In terms of dynamics, we cannot exclude anything. We will do everything necessary to prevent Russia from winning this war.”
The statement prompted a wave of denial from NATO members, with multiple major members of the bloc, including the US, the UK and Germany insisting they harbor no such plans. Some lesser members of the bloc, however, namely Estonia and Lithuania, appeared to back Macron, suggesting that sending troops to Ukraine should not be ruled out.
“We shouldn’t be afraid of our own power. Russia is saying this or that step is escalation, but defense is not escalation,” the Prime Minister of Estonia Kaja Kallas told Sky on Wednesday. “I’m saying we should have all options on the table. What more can we do in order to really help Ukraine win?”
Moscow has strongly condemned Macron’s remarks, cautioning the US-led bloc against taking further hostile moves. Should NATO troops actually be deployed to Ukraine, a direct confrontation between the alliance and Russia will become not only “possible” but actually “inevitable,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned.
From the same source there was:
1 Mar, 2024 06:34
Vast majority of French oppose Macron’s ‘troops in Ukraine’ comment – poll
Survey results published on Thursday by French newspaper Le Figaro showed that 68% of respondents disapproved of Macron’s comments on a possible future NATO deployment to the war-torn state, while just 31% said they agreed. The remainder, just 1%, were undecided.
Given the many cases of having stood up against the popular wind prevailing in France, 31 % is a pretty good score.
Add to this that although Macron has met with resistance to implications of the statements, he has support from a country like Estonia:
29 Feb, 2024 15:59
NATO member backs ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine
Estonia is “not afraid” of Russia and thinks sending NATO ground troops to Ukraine ought to be under consideration, Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has told Sky News in an interview aired on Wednesday.
So far, only Estonia and Lithuania have expressed any enthusiasm for the idea of escalating NATO support to Kiev beyond deliveries of weapons, ammunition, and money.
“We shouldn’t be afraid of our own power. Russia is saying this or that step is escalation, but defense is not escalation,” Kallas told Sky. “I’m saying we should have all options on the table. What more can we do in order to really help Ukraine win?”
Earlier this week, French President Emmanuel Macron argued that the US-led bloc should not rule out sending troops to Ukraine, or any other options. Most members of the bloc have sincedistanced themselvesfrom the idea – except two of the former Soviet Baltic republics.
On Tuesday, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis urged NATO to “think outside the box.” Meanwhile, the country’sambassador to Sweden, Linas Linkevicius, said the bloc would “neutralize” the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad if Moscow “dares to challenge NATO.”
The Estonian and Lithuanian officials are supported by the US or were they given the cue cards, … like Macron?
29 Feb, 2024 23:57
Pentagon warns of direct Russia-NATO clash
Addressing the US House Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday, Austin once again urged lawmakers to approve additional funding for Kiev’s war effort, painting a grim picture for NATO allies.
“If you are a Baltic state, you are really worried about whether you are next… And, frankly, if Ukraine falls, I really believe that NATO will be in a fight with Russia,” the Pentagon chief said.
Austin went on to claim that “other autocrats around the world will look at this and will be encouraged by the fact that this happened and we failed to support a democracy.
Macron is probably aware he is in the same situation as Rishi Sunak. That is there are already French “advisors” involved:
29 Feb, 2024 19:14
UK ‘directly involved’ in Ukraine conflict – KremlinThe outlet RTVI asked Peskov to comment a report from The Times which claimed that Admiral Tony Radakin, the head of the UK armed forces, has helped make “battle plans” for Ukraine.
“In general, it’s no secret that the British really provide different forms of support [to Ukraine]. People on the ground and intelligence and so on and so forth,” Peskov said. “That is, they are actually directly involved in this conflict.”
According to the British outlet, citing a Ukrainian military source, Radakin “is understood to have helped the Ukrainians with the strategy to destroy Russian ships and open up the Black Sea,” and seen as “invaluable in coordinating support from other senior chiefs in NATO.”
The admiral also reportedly visited Kiev and met with President Vladimir Zelensky, to discuss Ukraine’s strategy and the ways in which the West could help.
The Kremlin doesn’t have specific information related to Radakin, but “probably our military knows about this,” Peskov said.
Radakin, 58, was due to retire in November after three years as chief of the defense staff, but will stay on the job for another year at Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s request, the Times reported. One source told the outlet that the British government considered it important to retain“continuity”ahead of the upcoming general election.
France accused of ‘unacceptable’ behaviour after demanding UK taxpayer cash for Hinkley nuclear.
Former energy secretary Chris Huhne says Paris must cover cost overruns
Jonathan Leake, 29 February 2024 •
France’s demands for UK taxpayers to help fund Hinkley Point
C are “wholly unacceptable”, according to the former energy secretary
who helped develop the nuclear project. Chris Huhne, who was energy
secretary from 2010 to 2012, said he was “astonished and saddened” to
hear that both Bruno Le Maire, the French finance minister, and Luc
Rémont, chief executive of EDF, were pressing the UK to help with the cost
overruns.
Mr Huhne was a leading architect of the deal with EDF, France’s
state-owned electricity supplier, to build the nuclear power station. Under
the deal, finally signed off by Mr Huhne’s successor, Ed Davey, EDF was
responsible for all the estimated £18bn costs, with a start date of 2025.
Telegraph 29th Feb 2024
Chris Huhne Letter: Taxpayers shouldn’t be footing bill for EDF failings
I was astonished and saddened by your report that both Bruno Le
Maire, the French finance minister, and Luc Rémont, chief executive of
EDF, are pressing the UK government to help with the cost overrun at
Hinkley Point C, the EDF nuclear plant under construction in the UK.
I regret EDF’s €12.9bn write down, but it is the French company’s
responsibility (Report, February 17). I will save French blushes by not
quoting all the promises that were made by the company about the low cost
of its nuclear energy (a fraction even of what was ultimately agreed). What
is wholly unacceptable, however, is the notion that the UK taxpayer should
in any way be on the hook for cost overruns when it was always made utterly
explicit — by me and my successor — that this would never happen.
A clear condition of the Hinkley project was that EDF would be entirely and
solely responsible for the construction costs and risks, and the UK
government would merely guarantee a price (subsidy-free, taking account of
carbon costs) for the electricity output once the plant started. Nothing
could be more unambiguous either legally, politically or morally.
Neither I nor my immediate successors would ever have agreed any contract — a
contract for difference — on any other basis. Any British minister who
now goes back on that arrangement would be betraying their responsibility
to the exchequer, and would be a legitimate target for the public accounts
committee.
FT 28th Feb 2024
https://www.ft.com/content/175d212b-0a93-48f5-b68c-2a58bd098796
France creates coalition to arm Ukraine with long-range weapons
28 Feb 24 https://www.rt.com/news/593253-france-macron-coalition-long-range-weapons-ukraine/
The aim is to enable Kiev to “carry out deep strikes” amid flagging US support, President Emmanuel Macron has said
France is leading a new coalition that aims to provide Ukraine with “medium and long-range missiles and bombs,” President Emmanuel Macron has announced. He has also not ruled out deploying ground forces to support Kiev in future.
Macron made the remarks following a summit of Ukraine’s backers on Monday, intended to demonstrate unwavering support for Kiev amid the suspension of American aid.
According to the French leader, the newly established coalition seeks to enable Ukraine to “carry out deep strikes.” There is a “broad consensus to do even more and faster together” to support Kiev, Macron added.
The move comes as continued US aid to Ukraine remains in doubt. President Joe Biden’s latest package, which envisages an additional $60 billion for Kiev, has been in limbo for months due to opposition from Republicans in the House of Representatives. Lawmakers have made clear they will only relent if the White House agrees to tighten US border controls and stems the flow of illegal migrants from Mexico.
Speaking on Monday, Macron also claimed that the deployment of Western troops to Ukraine cannot be ruled out, insisting that Paris will “do everything necessary to ensure that Russia cannot win this war.” His remarks were echoed by French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal in comments to the RTL broadcaster on Tuesday.
In response, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov warned that “in this case, we have to talk not about the probability, but rather the inevitability” of a direct conflict between NATO and Russia, should Western military personnel be deployed to Ukraine.
Earlier this month, Paris and Kiev signed a bilateral security pact under which France pledged €3 billion ($3.26 billion) worth of defense aid by the end of the year.
In January, Macron revealed plans to provide Ukraine with 40 more SCALP-EG long-range cruise missiles and “hundreds of bombs.”
Paris agreed to ship the rockets, which have a range of over 250km (155 miles), last July, months after the UK agreed a similar move.
Russia has consistently condemned Western deliveries of long-range weaponry, saying it will only serve to prolong the hostilities unnecessarily without changing the final outcome.
Macron and Zelensky sign military deal
18 Feb 2024 , https://www.sott.net/article/489024-Sell-out-Macron-and-Zelensky-sign-military-deal
The ten-year pact mirrors defense agreements Kiev recently signed with Berlin and London
France and Ukraine signed a bilateral security pact on Friday during President Vladimir Zelensky’s visit to Paris. While President Emmanuel Macron did not offer Kiev any ironclad military commitments, he promised another €3 billion in aid over the rest of 2024, as well as “cooperation” in the area of artillery.
The agreement states that France views the prospect of Ukraine’s accession to NATO positively, as “a useful contribution to peace and stability in Europe.” The largely symbolic deal is designed to help “pave the way towards Ukraine’s future integration into the EU and NATO,” French media noted, citing officials.
The pact follows a similar agreement struck with Germany earlier in the day, and another signed with the UK last month. All three are set to last ten years.
Last month, Macron announced that France would supply Kiev with 40 more SCALP-EG long-range cruise missiles and “hundreds of bombs,” promising to finalize the bilateral security agreement on an upcoming trip to Kiev. The trip, which was to run from February 13-14, was called off by the French side due to security concerns, according to French media.
Zelensky is set to ask Western sponsors for more financing at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, while the situation on the front lines of the Ukraine-Russia conflict is escalating, with Kiev facing severe personnel and ammo shortages.
Moscow has condemned Western deliveries of long-range weaponry such as French SCALP-EG cruise missiles, which Kiev has used to strike Russian infrastructure in Donbass, causing numerous civilian deaths. Russia maintains that further military aid to Kiev will only delay the end of the conflict without changing the final outcome, and lead to unnecessary deaths.
Comment: The ‘leaders’ of Europe are selling out Europe and the welfare of their countries while submitting to a globalist anti-human agenda.
See also:
France’s first 6 EPR2 nuclear reactors will cost much more than the planned 52 billion euros.
Why the first six EPR2s will cost much more than the 52 billion euros
initially planned by EDF. During a hearing in the Senate, the executive
director of EDF’s new nuclear projects, Xavier Ursat, indicated that the
first six EPR2s will cost more than the 52 billion euros announced in 2021.
A first slippage in costs including the new estimate is promised for the
end of 2024.
Why the first six EPR2s will cost much more than the 52
billion euros initially planned by EDF. EDF does not brag about it. But in
the Senate commission of inquiry into the price of electricity, Xavier
Ursat, its executive director in charge of the engineering department and
new nuclear projects, was obliged to talk about it.
As predicted by an expert report in 2021, the construction of the first six EPR2s will indeed
cost more than the 51.7 billion euros, rounded to 52 billion by the State,
calculated by EDF at the time Emmanuel Macron had to decide on the relaunch
of a new nuclear program in France. A relaunch confirmed in his speech on
Belfort’s energy strategy on February 10, 2022. “We are carrying out a
new economic assessment. It led to a figure higher than 52 billion,”
Xavier Ursat declared to the senators. Which, for him, “is not very
surprising”.
L’Usine Nouvelle 12th Feb 2024
Britain must pay more for Hinkley, says France
Push for funding comes weeks after Hinkley Point C costs were revised up to £46bn
Jonathan Leake, 13 February 2024
British taxpayers have been asked to stump up cash to fund nuclear power
plants being built in the UK by the French energy giant EDF. Bruno Le
Maire, France’s finance minister, said on Tuesday he would be asking
Jeremy Hunt for “an equitable sharing of costs” for the power stations
which include Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, and Sizewell C, in Suffolk.
It comes after it emerged that the costs at Hinkley Point C had surged to
£46bn, significantly more than the £18bn proposed when contracts were
signed in 2016. Speaking at an International Energy Agency ministerial
meeting in Paris, Mr Le Maire said he had raised the subject with Claire
Coutinho, the Energy Secretary, and planned to have “discussions” with
Mr Hunt, the Chancellor, about it.
The UK has so far refused to consider
paying more for Hinkley, pointing out that it is not a government project.
Last month a government spokesman said: “Any additional costs or schedule
overruns are the responsibility of EDF and its partners and will in no way
fall on taxpayers.”
There is growing concern in France over the plight of
state-owned EDF which is on the hook for most of the extra costs. If EDF
were to pull out of Sizewell it would cause huge delays and a likely end UK
hopes of building 24 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity by 2050, equating to
about seven new nuclear power stations. These would supply up to a quarter
of the country’s projected electricity demand.
Telegraph 13th Feb 2024
France: EDF Faces Unprecedented Nuclear Workload in France
Energy Intelligence Group, Fri, Feb 9, 2024, Grace Symes, London
As France faces two major nuclear efforts — the refurbishment and life extension of EDF’s domestic operating fleet and a major nuclear newbuild program — there are already signs that the country’s nuclear workforce is struggling to keep up. With 10-year safety reviews, or decennial visits (DVs), of EDF’s 56 domestic reactors growing ever more complex and time-consuming, EDF anticipates flatlined nuclear output from 2025 to 2026, and beyond that France will need to ramp up an industrial effort not seen in generations if it hopes to successfully launch simultaneous large newbuilds (related).
Energy Intelligence 9th Feb 2024
https://www.energyintel.com/0000018d-7944-d1ef-a5cd-fd647d920000
France’s Flamanville EPR has numerous technical problems which mean that its safety issues are not “now closed”
Response from GLOBAL CHANCE to the ASN consultation on the request for
authorization to commission the Flamanville EPR reactor.
Contrary to what the President of the ASN stated on January 30, 2024 in his conference press
and the presentation of one’s wishes, numerous technical subjects which are
as much potential problems for the proper functioning of the EPR and which
call into question the reactor safety, cannot be considered “now closed”.
The problems that hamper the operation and safety of the EPR are numerous.
Most serious are presented in the following chapters in two parts: severe
and persistent then severe and whose solutions are risky. They lead to
asking questions including the answers do not appear in any of the
documents which constitute the file released made available to the public
by the ASN
Global Chance 9th Feb 2024
1 This Month
29 Jan. Thursday 7-8 p.m. Webinar – World’s Largest Nuclear Station in Port Hope, ON?
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (288)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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 