Radiation levels mysteriously spike along Norway’s border with Russia – as it’s claimed activity has been seen at test site for Putin’s ‘Flying Chernobyl’ nuclear missile
Traces of radioactive Cesium-137 have been
measured along Norway’s border with Russia, it was revealed today. The
radiation levels are ‘clearly’ higher than normal, authorities have said,
and the cause of the mysterious spike is unknown.
One fear is that it could
relate to Russia’s Pankovo test site for the Burevestnik – a
nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile – on the Novaya Zemlya
archipelago.
Daily Mail 17th Sept 2024
New iodine tablets for communes near French nuclear power sites.
The tablets are distributed for use in the event of an emergency, but some say
the scheme does not go far enough. New iodine tablets are to be distributed
again to people living in French communes near nuclear power station sites,
after authorities renewed the campaign.
Since September 15, residents
living or people working within a 10 km radius of the Penly and Paluel
nuclear power plants (Seine-Maritime, Normandy) have been receiving new
free iodine tablets to use in the event of a nuclear plant accident.
Pharmacies are now able to distribute the tablets. The tablets can also be
collected and dispensed by public establishments to make it easier for
residents to get hold of them (if they are not able to get to a pharmacy).
Connexion 17th Sept 2024
Hinkley Point C: Building Britain’s first nuclear reactor in 30 years
The government revised the strike prices for renewable generation in December 2023, the strike price for offshore wind is £73 and PV £61 so nuclear remains an expensive zero carbon option. The current price for electricity is approximately £83mWhr.
Building, By Thomas Lane, 17 September 2024
Like its Finnish and French twins, Hinkley Point C has suffered from cost overuns and delays. What are the team doing to claw back the losses and what does this mean for Sizewell C?
Nothing on the drive from Taunton to Hinkley Point C hints at the scale of the project at the destination. The journey is along picturesque minor roads, through woods and up and down steep-sided, intimate valleys before the terrain flattens out to reveal Europe’s largest construction site.
The huge location, which is deliberately situated miles away from major population centres, sprawls across a flat plain next to the Bristol Channel on the Somerset coast. Everything about this project is supersized.
There are 58 cranes on this job, one of which is Big Carl, the world’s largest land-based crane. Powered by 12 engines and rolling on 96 wheels, this monster can lift 5,000 tonnes and needs dedicated tracks to move it to the different parts of the nuclear island, where the reactors are being built.
A dedicated bus company was set up to avoid thousands of workers clogging up the lanes with traffic. It brings up to 11,000 of them from around the area and home again on a fleet of 176 buses. This includes a route to transport people around the 176-hectare site. The site even has a doctor’s surgery, a fire service and police station.
The civil engineering works are well advanced, with one of the two reactors close to fit-out and construction on the second coming along. Works elsewhere are progressing with the project about to move from the civil engineering phase to the complex mechanical, electrical and heating fit-out stage (see box).
Getting to this point has been long, slow and expensive. Hinkley Point C is the first nuclear reactor to be built since Sizewell B was completed in 1995. Called the European pressurised water reactor (EPR), Hinkley Point C is the third example to be built in Europe. The first was built at Olkiluoto in Finland and the second at Flamanville in France.
Each of these projects has gone massively over budget and taken much longer to build than envisaged (see box). The latest estimates suggest that Hinkley Point will cost as much as £34bn, nearly double the original budget of £18bn.
Originally scheduled to complete in 2025, the plant could come online as late as 2031. Why is Hinkley proving so expensive to build, despite the lessons from two earlier projects? And what are the cost and programme implications – and therefore the likelihood of it going ahead – for the proposed Sizewell C and beyond?.
There are many reasons for the cost increases and delays. These include the impact of the pandemic, which has delayed construction by 15 months, inflation and the challenge of finding people with the skills to meet the exacting standards demanded by nuclear construction. Different nuclear regulatory regimes across Europe are a big reason why the third EPR reactor is still costing more and is taking longer to build than originally envisaged.
“We had to substantially adapt the EPR design to satisfy British regulations, requiring 7,000 changes, adding 35% more steel and 25% more concrete,” explains Simon Parsons, EDF’s delivery director for the nuclear island.
According to Parsons, the French regulatory approach is very prescriptive, whereas in the UK it is up to EDF to prove that its design meets UK requirements. The UK is more focused on the consequences of failure than in Europe.
The main components inside the reactor building such as the reactor pressure vessel and steam generators are made to the same design by the same manufacturers but are subject to a UK specific safety regime. “We’ve been asked to do more FMEA (failure mode and effects analysis), material analysis and fracture toughness testing of welds over a piece of equipment,” Parsons says.
Progress at Hinkley Point…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………….The digital data will be used for building operation, maintenance and – in 60 years after the plant starts operating – decommissioning. The data has a second important function: it will be used to build Sizewell C assuming funding is confirmed by the new government. Crucially for the future of UK nuclear, this will incorporate the lessons learnt from the construction of each reactor.
Will Hinkley Point and Sizewell provide value for money?
……………………….Hinkley Point and Sizewell will produce 14% of the UK’s electricity, the same as generated in 2022. This is considerably less than during nuclear’s 1990s heyday when it generated 24.5% of the UK’s electricity.
When Sizewell and Hinkley Point C start generating power, the only operational nuclear power station will be Sizewell B, which means nuclear’s total contribution to UK electricity generation will be 17%.
The argument against nuclear is the cost, with critics saying it is poor value for money compared with renewables. All three EPR nuclear power stations built in Europe have suffered from serious cost overruns and delays.
…………………Hinkley Point C got the green light in 2016 with an estimated £18bn build cost and completion by 2027. The most recent estimates put costs as high as £34bn at 2015 prices, £46bn in today’s money. The poor budgetary track record of the EPR begs the question, is new nuclear good value for money?
Hinkley Point was originally a privately financed joint venture between EDF and China General Nuclear with EDF owning two-thirds and CGN the remaining third. The station was to be financed using the Contracts for Difference mechanism which is used to support forms of electricity generation which can’t compete with gas.
This government guarantees a minimum payment for the electricity, the so-called strike price. In 2012 a strike price of £93.50mWhr was agreed for Hinkley Point C at a time when electricity cost £40mWhr, provoking criticism that nuclear was too expensive. The strike price is inflation linked meaning it is worth approximately £139 at 2023 prices.
The government revised the strike prices for renewable generation in December 2023, the strike price for offshore wind is £73 and PV £61 so nuclear remains an expensive zero carbon option. The current price for electricity is approximately £83mWhr.
As the cost of Hinkley Point has increased, the backers have had to provide more funding. The souring of relations between Britain and China saw CGN stop providing any more money, leaving EDF to fund the shortfall. EDF has called upon the UK government to help out with the escalating cost but it has refused. EDF was fully nationalised in 2023, leaving the French taxpayer to pick up the tab for the cost overruns.
Like Hinkley Point, Sizewell was a joint venture between EDF and CGN but concerns over Chinese involvement meant the UK government took over from CGN in 2022. The cost overruns on Hinkley mean EDF wanted a different funding arrangement to avoid picking up the construction risk for Sizewell.
It will be funded using the regulated asset base model, which is the same as used for Thames Tideway; a surcharge is placed on electricity bills to fund the plant. EDF’s role would be to build and operate the plant without taking the construction risk.
A development consent order for the project was granted in January 2024 and the nuclear site licence approved in May 2024. The final investment decision will be made at the end of this year.
Sizewell C may cost less to build than Hinkley Point thanks to the experience gained constructing the latter, but the British consumer could end up paying more thanks to the different funding arrangement…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.building.co.uk/buildings/hinkley-point-c-building-britains-first-nuclear-reactor-in-30-years/5130997.article
Nuclear Free Local Authorities want to lament, not ‘celebrate’ nuclear legacy.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has published its first Heritage Vision and Strategy[i] to ‘celebrate the history and cultural heritage of the nuclear industry’, but to the Nuclear Free Local Authorities the history of the industry is rather something to lament.
The NDA claims that the ‘benefits of preserving, safeguarding, and celebrating nuclear heritage are many, ranging from learning lessons of the past so we can support decommissioning and future nuclear developments, to realising significant social value potential by connecting with local communities and other stakeholders’ but the Nuclear Free Local Authorities are concerned that the strategy will only look to capture the ‘fluffy side’ of nuclear history and will disregard cataloguing its ‘sinister side’.
For the history of the nuclear industry is littered with money, scientific and human resources wasted on abortive, failed or delayed nuclear power designs; the major accidents at Windscale and Wylfa[ii] which endangered large parts of Britain; cancer clusters; the employment of civil nuclear facilities to produce plutonium for British nuclear weapons which poisoned Indigenous people and their lands and ruined the health and took the lives of many of the British military personnel involved in the test programme; a disastrous and costly venture into reprocessing; and a legacy of radioactive contamination of land, air, watercourses and seas, and radioactive buildings to demolish and a stockpile of high-level radioactive waste to manage that will cost over £280 Billion of taxpayers money at current prices.
Councillor Lawrence O’Neill, Chair of the NFLA Steering Committee, said: “Glorifying nuclear history by celebrating it, and ignoring its dark side, will only help facilitate the development of yet more nuclear plants in the future by boosting its acceptability at a time when every available penny and every national resource should be focused on building more renewable energy and storage capacity to achieve Net Zero and the Labour Government’s ambition to make Britain a clean energy superpower.”
The NDA opened Nucleus, the Nuclear and Caithness Archives, near the airport in Wick, Caithness in 2017[iii]. With a team of approximately 20 including archivists, preservation experts and support staff, Nucleus holds archives and artefacts from the nuclear industry. The organisation will work with staff from other sections of the NDA and national heritage organisations from England, Scotland, and Wales to deliver the new strategy.
Nucleus is open to the public Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm. Archives may be viewed in our public search room between 10am to 4pm. Visitors are urged to make an appointment and pre-order documents at least two days in advance. Drop-in customers will also be accommodated as far as possible on the day. Documents can be requested under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Please phone 01925 802077 or email enquiries@nda.gov.uk. Members of the public are also invited to visit our exhibition space located at the front of the building.
Ends://For more information, contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
Surge in Russian uranium sent to China
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/17/ukraine-russia-war-latest-news27/
Washington fears Russia is sending large quantities of enriched uranium to China in an effort to evade sanctions imposed after its invasion of Ukraine.
Chinese imports of enriched uranium from Russia, the world’s largest exporter of the radioactive metal, soared in 2022 and 2023, according to data released by the World Bank.
The US is now investigating whether the uranium, used as nuclear power plant fuel, is then being imported to America.
China only started to send vast quantities of enriched uranium to the US after Congress passed a ban on the import of the metal from Russia after the Ukraine invasion.
“As China may be seeking to carve out a greater role for itself in world enriched uranium markets, increased imports of Russian enriched uranium may facilitate the pursuit of Beijing’s ambitions,” said a report in March by the London-based Royal United Services Institute think tank.
The UK government deserves an award for the biggest load of nuclear propaganda BS yet!
“to safeguard and celebrate the
history and cultural heritage of the nuclear industry”
will also support
future nuclear developments
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has published the first ever
nuclear heritage vision and strategy. The NDA is the organisation
responsible for decommissioning the UK’s legacy nuclear sites, sites and
facilities. It said the purpose of the nuclear heritage vision and
strategy, published on 12 September, is “to safeguard and celebrate the
history and cultural heritage of the nuclear industry”. Among the
strategy’s aims will be the collection of learnings to improve planning
of decommissioning activities and reduce risks. This will also support
future nuclear developments such as new nuclear builds, research and
development, long term decommissioning programmes and a Geological Disposal
Facility (GDF).
New Civil Engineer 16th Sept 2024,
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/inaugural-nuclear-heritage-strategy-to-support-decommissioning-planning-and-new-nuclear-builds-16-09-2024/
Safety level at Scotland’s largest nuclear site raised to ‘enhanced’ after leaks found
By Katharine Hay, Rural affairs correspondent
Inspectors found “inadequate” storage of alkali metals at the site
earlier this year which fell below the legal requirements. A watchdog has
called for an increase in safety and regulation requirements at
Scotland’s largest nuclear clean-up and demolition project over the
current state of the building.
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)
found leaks from low-level radioactive waste pits in recent site
inspections at Dounreay, a nuclear power complex which is currently being
decommissioned on the north Caithness coast in the Highlands.
Scotsman 15th Sept 2024
Biden, Harris sacrificing endless thousands of Ukrainians to retain presidency November 5.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coaliton, Glen Ellyn IL, 16 Sept 24
President Biden sent Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Kyiv last week to reassure Ukrainian President Zelensky that Ukraine can prevail against Russia with endless US billions in weapons. He also stated that Ukraine will eventually achieve NATO membership.
Blinken was lying to Zelensky. He, along with President Biden and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, know full well the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is lost. Indeed, it was certain to be lost the day it started over two and a half years ago. It could not be won without direct US/NATO involvement, regardless of how many hundreds of billions we squander supplying Ukraine with weapons. Direct involvement was ruled out because it likely means WWIII. US weapons are worthless because Ukraine is running out of soldiers to use them.
The US essentially green-lighted the invasion believing US weaponry would allow Ukraine to weaken, even defeat Russia, a long sought US foreign policy goal to keep them out of the European political economy.
The result has been a catastrophe for Ukraine, now a shattered country. It spells the end of continued US domination of Europe that offered no seat at the table for Russia.
The Biden/Harris administration must now take the sensible, moral action of forcing Ukraine to sue for peace. Allowing Ukraine to bleed out with further destruction to its economy, infrastructure, demographics and hundreds thousands more casualties is a grotesque policy to pursue.
But Biden and Harris are committed to their declaration this is a holy way of autocracy v. freedom. They are loathe to allow any settlement which allows Russia to achieve their war aims of no NATO membership for Ukraine and independence for Donbas, with security for Ukraine going forward.
It’s even more improbable for them to do that with the election just 7 weeks away. Admitting defeat after squandering over $150 billion simply destroying Ukraine to allow a Russian victory will bring an avalanche of criticism from national security state warhawks. It would rip away the false notion that this was a just war to protect US national security interests. It could cost Harris the election.
So Biden and Harris continue to prevent and cover up Ukraine’s impending collapse till after Election Day. They continue to fling tens of billions in weaponry into Ukraine which will either be destroyed by overwhelming Russian firepower or sit idle unused.
Biden and Harris have made a pact with the Devil over Ukraine. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians must die to keep the Democrats from losing a war shortly before an election. A war that never should have been fought and that signals the impending demise of US unilateral control of the world.
During his first year, President Biden lost the 20 year long Afghan war. Losing 2 senseless wars in one term is a lost war too far to remain in power. Biden and Harris’ message to Ukraine? ‘Keep dying Ukrainians. We’ll figure something out after November 5’.
Ukrainian Tipping Points – UPDATE 4: US Blocks Long-Range Missile Attacks Until After Elections?
Russian and Eurasian Politics, by Gordonhahn, September 16, 2024, https://gordonhahn.com/2024/09/16/ukrainian-tipping-points-update-4-us-blocks-long-range-missile-attacks-until-after-elections/
As I expected in my original article (included further below), the, the political wing kicked down the road until after the elections the escalation against Russia that would have occurred by allowing Kiev to hit the country with US long-range missiles.
The US has refrained from removing its prohibition on Ukraine’s use of US ATACM or JSSSAM long-range missiles against targets deep inside Russia’s pre-2014 territory. Against all military and political logic, the UK lobbied hard during its prime minister’s visit to Washington and had approved use of its Storm Shadow missiles for such use (https://ctrana.news/news/471905-london-razreshil-ukraine-bit-po-rossii.html).
The US is operating under military and political logic. The Biden administration demanded that Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy present a list of potential Russian targets to the White House, after the Pentagon questioned the military utility of such attacks (https://ctrana.news/news/471904-ssha-trebujut-ot-kieva-stratehiju-dalnobojnykh-udarov-po-rf.html).
Politically, as I noted, it is not in the Biden administration’s and Democratic party’s interest to have a crisis of a status of the Cuban Missile Crisis or have have Ukrainian forces suffer a grave collapse before the November 5 presidential elections.
This precluded any lifting of the prohibition before then, but afterwards things could change, and there those such as US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and other neocons will be pressing hard to work out a reversal of this sane decision.
It appears that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s warning that such attacks would require NATO country officers’ involvement and thus would mean that NATO is directly fighting Russia and so Moscow would regard itself to be in a state of war with the country or countries’ the missiles of which were used played a role in the US’s decision to back down. The political configuration after the election could overcome the hesitation Putin induced among top US decision makers.
Playing with nuclear fire
Eric S. Margolis, 16 Sept 24, https://thesun.my/opinion-news/playing-with-nuclear-fire-EC13005045
REPUBLICANS in the US Senate have been urging the White House to provide Ukraine with long-range missiles that can strike deep into Russia. Such is the madness of pro-war sentiment.
America’s Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has apparently confirmed that Washington plans to shortly deliver such strategic weapons to Ukraine. This week, Britain’s new prime minister arrived in Washington to discuss more strategic arms for Ukraine.
One is vividly reminded of the mobs who thronged Paris train stations in August 1914, screaming “on to Berlin”. As a British historian aptly noted, “if patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, then war is the first platform of fools”.
US-supplied long-range missiles are the last step between what was a border conflict and an all-out war that will likely go nuclear.
Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that he reduced conventional forces to divert funds to Russia’s stunted civilian economy. Nuclear weapons, said Putin, will be used to replace conventional forces if Russia is attacked. We must take him at his word.
The border war with Ukraine, which began in 2014, has shown how much Russia reduced its former conventional might. The once mighty Red Army has proven a shadow of its former self. Under Putin, armies of tanks have been replaced by new apartments across the sprawling nation.
The idea of sending more long-range missiles to Ukraine is sheer madness. Ukraine is slowly being ground down in this long war of attrition.
Ukraine’s current strategy is to provoke a direct clash between Russia and the US. Interestingly, Israel used the same strategy to provoke direct US military intervention against Syria and various Arab militias.
The US, dominated by pro-war Republicans and wealthy pro-Israel special interests, appears eager to promote war with Russia. Most importantly, neoconservatives are urging intensified war against Russia to advance their goal of breaking up the Russian Federation into small, weak pieces dominated by Washington.
Such was the case under former Russian president, Boris Yeltsin, who allowed US financial interests to dominate Russia while he made merry. Former KGB officer Putin put an end to Washington’s attempt to turn Russia into an American satrapy.
I interviewed the leaders of KGB at Moscow’s Lubyanka Prison in 1991. They expressed disgust with Russia’s then-Communist leadership and said there would be a housecleaning. The result was, of course, Putin’s surprising rise to power.
Putin quickly became the target of US media hate. He committed terrible brutalities in Chechnya, but without him, Russia may have ended up as today’s supine Germany.
The US overthrew Ukraine’s last pro-Russian government. Ukraine had been part of the Russian state for hundreds of years and the centre of its heavy industries. This coup cost the US $5 billion (RM21.44 billion), according to leading State Department neocon Victoria Nuland.
An actor, the amiable Volodymyr Zelensky, was put in charge by Nuland. US funds and arms poured into Ukraine. Efforts by Washington to shatter the old Soviet Union were a brilliant success, except that Washington had to foot the bill, which has so far reached an astounding US$44 billion, depriving the US military of many important weapons systems.
One also wonders why former president Donald Trump did not raise the issue of Ukraine’s payments to President Joe Biden and his son.
As a veteran war correspondent and old friend of Ukraine, I see the US and Russia heading to a major war. The Western powers have been relentlessly provoking Russia. The idea of supplying Ukraine with a new class of long-range missiles will likely ignite a dangerous war that may likely go nuclear.
Now is the time for the great powers to impose peace, not supply arms. Time to end the unnecessary sufferings of Ukrainians and Russians. Genuine diplomacy, not more weapons, is the answer.
The NATO/Ukraine Defeat in Kursk (and Beyond)
SOTT, by Gordonhahn, September 14, 2024
Contrary to the view of Beltway pundits regarding the sunny side or various alleged successes of Ukraine’s Kursk incursion, the Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy’s newest simulacra attack –substituting a fake reality for the real one – has led to yet another predictable catastrophe in the real world of war and politics. Zelenskiy’s gambit had no military logic behind it. Its essence was made up of a propagandistic/PR component and perhaps a terrorist element. It was a reckless, desperate last roll of the dice to overturn the playing board which never had a hope of succeeding. Not one of the goals stated by Ukrainian officials was achieved, nor was the unstated, potential goal of seizng the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant achieved. What was ‘achieved’ was a decimation of some of Ukraine’s best remaining men and materiel.
Ukrainian officials publicly stated several goals of the operation:
(1) to force Moscow to redeploy troops away from Russian forces’ increasingly rapid advance on Pokrovsk and across the Donetsk front;
(2) to seize Russian territory to encourage Moscow to negotiate and to trade for the return of Ukrainian lands in peace talks with Moscow;
(3) to capture Russian prisoners of war to exchange for Ukrainian prisoners;
(4) to create angst in Russia among the elite and population in order to weaken support for the war and/or Putin’s hold on power; and
(5) to make Russia feel the pain of death and destruction that Ukraine has been feeling (Zelenskiy alone said this).
None of these goals was achieved.
Regarding the first goal, Ukrainian Armed Forces Commander Gen. Oleksandr Syrskii has acknowledged that the Russian forces did not redeploy from Donetsk to Kursk. The strategy was misconceived from the get-go. The Ukrainians tried to get the Russians to make an obvious mistake: divert forces need for their offensives in Donetsk to the Ukrainians’ mini-salient in Kursk and thereby weaken their offensive force. Ironically, in order to get the Russians to make the mistake of diverting valuable resources from Donetsk to Kursk the Ukrainians had done the same. This led to an acceleration of the Russian advance towards Pokrovsk – a key hub and perhaps the last best barrier hindering the Russian army’s march to the Dnieper.
Regarding the second and third, before the incursion Putin and other Russian officials had repeated their willingness to negotiate, but Kiev refused or ignored each statement. After the incursion, the Russians announced that there will be no talks while Ukrainian forces remain in Kursk and other Russian territories, according to Moscow’s definition. Moreover, as one exiled Ukrainian newspaper Ctrana.news, notes, no Russian is going to give back 18 percent of Ukrainian territory held by Russia in return for 5 percent of Kursk region’s territory. The same paper notes that even prominent Russian liberals, editor-in-chief of the banned Ekh Moskvy Aleksei Venediktov and Yabloko Party leader Grigorii Yavlinskii (who met with Putin weeks back to discuss peace talks), thought negotiations might have begun by year’s end until the Kursk incursion spoiled the mood in the Kremlin. No talks means there will be no trading for land or prisoners, contrary to Kiev’s goals.
Regarding the fourth goal, there has been no discernible elite or popular demand for a change in Putin’s ‘special operation policy’ (SMO). To the contrary, prominent hardliners and others intensified their clamor for untying the Russian military’s hands and undertaking a full-scale war on Ukraine, and this may explain an escalation in Russian missile attacks. In terms of the population, public opinion surveys demonstrate both continuing popular support for Putin and the mirror opposite effect on its views than that intended by Kiev. Ukrainian forces began their incursion on August 6th, crossing the Ukrainian-Russian border between Sumy, Ukraine and Kursk, Russia. In the Levada Center’s polling in July Putin’s approval rating was 87 percent. In August it fell a mere 2 points to 85 percent (within the margin of error).
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. In regard to the Kursk gambit’s unstated and likely real goal of seizing the Kursk NPP and or nuclear weapons storage site in the hope of holding the local population and the Putin government hostage to a possible terrorist attack and/or trading control of the Kursk object(s) for control over the Zaporozhe NPP, now held by the Russians and badly needed to help Ukraine get throught the upcoming winter, given the diminution of the country’s electricity system as a result of Russia’s repeated attacks.
So just like the attempts to destroy the Crimean Bridge and the drone attacks on Moscow and St. Petersburg, the effect of this newest Kievan-Western move has been the precise opposite of what was supposedly intended. Moscow and all Russia are even more committed to ‘Putin’s unprovoked war of aggression’ and any ‘unprovoked responses’ the Kremlin may mount.
Worst of all for the bright lights who conjured up this operation in Langley or elsewhere, the war is getting closer to ‘the last Ukrainian.’ The Kursk gambit has led to the destruction of much of Kiev’s best fighters and equipment, and it is likely many of those Ukrainian and other troops who made the incursion will be encircled in short time. At the same time, the Kursk gambit made Russian advances greater along much of the front but especially on the Donetsk and southern Donetsk fronts, which will lead to the more rapid fall of Pokrovsk, Vugledar, and the entire Ukrainian defense effort east of the Dnieper River. And do the Second Ruin of Ukraine continues with Western crocodile tears and calls to keep up the fight in defense of NATO expansion for as long as ‘it’ takes. https://www.sott.net/article/494845-The-NATO-Ukraine-defeat-in-Kursk-and-beyond
As Biden deliberates, Ukraine’s nuclear plants are increasingly at risk
fear this coming winter may prove to be a breaking point for Ukraine in the energy war.
Stuck in the crosshairs are key substations feeding high voltage electricity to Ukraine’s still functioning nuclear power stations in Rivne, Khmelnytskyi and Yuzhnoukrainsk in southern Ukraine. Take these substations out and the reactors have to be shut down rapidly, or else it could provoke a “nuclear incident,” energy expert Mykhailo Gonchar told POLITICO. And “that’s what the Russians are aiming to do — hit the key substations.”
Paralyze the three nuclear power stations, though, and it’s game over for Ukraine in the energy war ,
The risk of Ukraine losing the war this winter has pushed Washington and London to reconsider how Kyiv uses Western-supplied long-range missiles, but the U.S. remains fearful of escalation.
Politico, September 15, 2024 , By Jamie Dettmer
KYIV — As the U.S. ponders loosening some of the restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Western-supplied long-range missiles to allow for the targeting of airfields and missile launch sites deeper inside Russia, Ukraine remains on tenterhooks.
As it stands, Washington doesn’t appear ready to take the gloves off entirely and allow Ukraine to target Russia’s airfields with long-range U.S. missiles quite yet — though it may withdraw restrictions on the U.K.’s Storm Shadows, which use U.S. technology.
“I would like to see a more forthright position coming from the Biden administration that says there’s no reason why Ukraine shouldn’t be fighting back,” former U.S. envoy to NATO Kurt Volker told POLITICO. “Russia’s the one attacking Ukraine from all these facilities across Russia. There’s no reason for there to be a sanctuary. But I don’t think we’re going to see Biden authorizing the use of U.S. missiles to strike at Russian airfields, although the British might be allowed to proceed without U.S. objection,” he added. “That won’t be enough.”
And if that’s really the outcome of these weeks-long intense negotiations, Ukraine’s energy officials will be among those most alarmed.
They fear this coming winter may prove to be a breaking point for Ukraine in the energy war. And that’s largely because Russian commanders are adapting their airstrike tactics, having learned from their previous failed bombing campaign to collapse the country’s energy system — and the recent shipments of Iran’s Fath-360 close-range ballistic missiles to Russia will help them do so.
Ukrainian officials expect Russia will use these missiles, which have a range limit of 120 kilometers, to complement their glide bombs in targeting logistics and communications hubs and ammunition depots in the rear of Ukraine’s front lines. That, in turn, will free Russia up to concentrate its own longer-range missiles on civilian infrastructure — particularly the energy system in a bid to break it.
Stuck in the crosshairs are key substations feeding high voltage electricity to Ukraine’s still functioning nuclear power stations in Rivne, Khmelnytskyi and Yuzhnoukrainsk in southern Ukraine. Take these substations out and the reactors have to be shut down rapidly, or else it could provoke a “nuclear incident,” energy expert Mykhailo Gonchar told POLITICO. And “that’s what the Russians are aiming to do — hit the key substations.”
Currently, 55 percent of Ukraine’s energy is generated by its three operating nuclear power stations — the one in Zaporizhzhia, which is the largest nuclear plant in Europe, was captured by Russia in 2022 and has largely been shut down. Russian missile and drone strikes have destroyed 9 gigawatts of the country’s electrical generating capacity — that’s half of the peak winter consumption — with 80 percent of thermal generation from coal- and gas-fired power plants and a third of hydroelectric production capacity wiped out by bombing.
Last year, Russia tried to isolate these nuclear power plants, focusing on degrading Ukraine’s energy transmission. It targeted distribution to consumers and businesses but was met with characteristic Ukrainian ingenuity and confounded by improvised repairs and rerouting.
Paralyze the three nuclear power stations, though, and it’s game over for Ukraine in the energy war , diminishing its war-fighting capacity, crashing the economy and weakening its position if peace negotiations do ever commence.
And according to officials in Kyiv, it’s the fear of this happening that’s been one of the factors driving the Biden administration to reconsider the restrictions, including on U.S. ATACMS and British Storm Shadows. Washington sat up when Russian airstrikes started targeting the main substations feeding operational electricity to the nuclear power plants in late August. “That concentrated minds,” said one Ukrainian official who asked not to be identified in order to speak freely………………………………………………………………………………………………
Burns also stressed no one should underestimate the risk of escalation and admitted his agency genuinely feared Russia might resort to tactical nuclear weapons in 2022. And while Biden and British Prime Minister Kier Starmer brushed off Putin’s threats on Friday, the U.S. administration still appears to be trapped between two worries — fear of how Moscow might respond if Western-supplied missiles start striking Russian airfields, and wreck projects for peace talks to get going, and alarm over the prospect of Ukraine losing power……………………………………………………………… https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-ukraine-nuclear-plants-energy-war-joe-biden-united-states-nato/
Pentagon orders simulation of consequences of nuclear weapons use in Eastern Europe and Russia
12 September 2024, https://en.topwar.ru/249956-pentagon-zakazal-modelirovanie-posledstvij-primenenija-jadernogo-oruzhija-v-vostochnoj-evrope-i-rossii.html
The Pentagon intends to study the consequences of using nuclear weapons weapons in Europe and Russia. The US military has commissioned a third-party contractor to conduct the study. This is stated in documents from the US Department of Defense that have become publicly available.
The Pentagon has ordered a simulation of a situation involving the use of nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe and Western Russia, with the Americans particularly interested in the consequences of nuclear weapons use on the agricultural sector. As follows from the contract, the contractor must simulate a global nuclear situation the war, which led to the destruction of agriculture. The Pentagon also requires the contractor to expand the modeling beyond Eastern Europe and Western Russia, but with the obligatory condition of including former Eastern Bloc countries in the report.
Engineering Corps armies The United States has awarded a contract (…) to develop active research programs focused on modeling the effects of nuclear weapons on agricultural systems,
– leads RIA News excerpt from the document.
It is worth noting that this is not the first modeling of the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons ordered by the Americans. Similar studies were conducted for the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, the territory of the United States, the Middle East, as well as Europe and the entire Russian territory.
Scholz stands firm on long-range weapons for Kiev
https://www.rt.com/news/604037-scholz-long-range-weapons-kiev/ 16 Sept 24
Berlin will not lift restrictions on its more advanced weaponry, even if Ukraine’s other allies do, German chancellor has said.
Germany will not allow its long-range weapons to be used for Ukrainian strikes deep into Russia, even if other states choose to do so, Chancellor Olaf Scholz has said.
Washington and London have suggested that they could allow Kiev to use missiles such as the American-made ATACMS and the British-made Storm Shadow to hit such targets.
Berlin retains its policy of not permitting Ukraine to use German-provided long-range weapons for such attacks, Scholz said on Saturday at a Q&A session in Prenzlau, Brandenburg.
I’m sticking to my stance, even if other countries decide differently,” Scholz said. “I won’t do that because I think it’s a problem.”
Germany is Ukraine’s second-largest military donor after the US. Berlin has provided or pledged more than €28 billion ($31 billion) in lethal aid to Kiev since the start of the conflict with Russia, according to data from the Federal Government website.
However, Berlin has so far refused to follow the UK and France’s example in arming Ukraine with long-range missiles. In May, Scholz explained that supplying Ukraine with Taurus missiles with a range of 500 km (310 miles) would amount to Berlin’s direct participation in the conflict.
“It would only be tenable to deliver [these weapons] if we determine and define the targets ourselves, and that is again not possible if you don’t want to be part of this conflict,” he stressed.
On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Western powers against further escalating the hostilities. “We are not talking about allowing or prohibiting the Kiev regime from striking Russian territory,” Putin explained, noting that Ukraine was already doing this.
Western-supplied ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles have been used by Ukraine to strike targets in Crimea and Donbass – Russian territories that Kiev claims as its own – leading to multiple civilian casualties.
Kiev lacks the ability to independently use Western long-range systems, Putin explained.
Targeting for such strikes relies on intelligence from NATO satellites, while firing solutions can “only be entered by NATO military personnel.”
“This will mean that NATO countries, the US, European countries are fighting against Russia,” Putin stressed. Such direct participation will change “the very essence, the very nature of the conflict”, meaning Russia will have to “make the appropriate decisions on the threats,” the Russian leader warned.
In June, Putin pledged that Moscow would shoot down any missiles used in long-range strikes, and retaliate against those responsible. One possible response would be to send similar high-tech weaponry to forces that are in conflict with the West.
Serbia picks EDF, Egis for study on introduction of nuclear energy
The Ministry of Mining and Energy of Serbia awarded a contract to French
state-owned energy utility EDF and engineering company Egis Industries for
a preliminary technical study for considering the peaceful use of nuclear
energy. Following an agreement last month between Serbia and EDF to assess
the potential for developing a civil nuclear program, the French
state-owned energy utility and engineering firm Egis Industries won a
tender for the country’s first study.
The government in Belgrade adopted
changes to the Law on Energy in August as well, aiming to abolish a 1989
moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants.
Balkan Green Energy News 13th Sept 2024
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (317)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 