nuclear-news

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

Rolls-Royce to sell stake in mini-nukes arm.

Engineering giant seeks fresh funds as backers’ £280m and government’s £210m due to run out.

Rolls-Royce is poised to sell a stake in its mini-nuclear power stations
venture as it races to become the first company to deploy the technology in
Britain. Tufan Erginbilgic, the chief executive of the FTSE 100 engineering
giant, said it was talking to potential investors about its small modular
reactor (SMR) business as it looks to raise fresh funding.

Around £280m has
been put into the venture by the current backers including Rolls, BNF
Resources, Constellation and the Qatar Investment Authority. On top of
this, the company has received £210m in grant funding from the Government.


But funds are due to run out by early next year, meaning Rolls and its
fellow backers must either put in more money, sell equity to outside
investors or potentially do a combination of both. One source familiar with
the discussions said Rolls-Royce SMR would look to raise hundreds of
millions of pounds, probably based on a valuation of at least $2bn (£1.6bn)
– the current market value of US rival NuScale.

Interest in the business
has grown since Rolls emerged as the unofficial frontrunner in the
Government’s SMR design competition, which is being run by Great British
Nuclear (GBN) and is expected to conclude in late autumn. The GBN
competition is expected to select two viable designs before awarding them
contracts next year to build the first demonstrator SMRs at as-yet-unnamed
sites. They would be expected to come online in the early 2030s. Along with
Rolls, the other contenders are GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Westinghouse,
Holtec Britain and NuScale. However, Rolls has also advanced further
towards regulatory approval than any other SMR developer so far.

Telegraph 3rd Aug 2024

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/03/rolls-royce-sell-stake-mini-nukes-arm/

August 5, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

UK Electricity System Operator (ESO)s Future Energy Scenarios for a green UK – nuclear power is uncertain.

In its new Future Energy Scenarios report, National Grid’s Electricity
System Operator (ESO) maps three potential pathways to meet the UK’s 2050
net-zero target. Electric Engagement is weighted towards the
electrification of sectors such as heating, transport & heavy industry.

Hydrogen Evolution prioritises the use of hydrogen instead. Holistic
Transition is a mix. Renewables dominate across the board, with wind and
solar at 150-250 GW by 2050, depending on the scenario. Total energy supply
and demand is highest in the Hydrogen Evolution pathway. Electrifying
sectors is seen as inherently more efficient than producing hydrogen, since
doing so can be energy-intensive, using scarce green energy to make
expensive fuel, or carbon-intensive fossil gas.

Indeed, as Edie notes,
though natural gas supply in the Hydrogen Evolution pathway is two-thirds
lower in 2050 than at present, it is still over double the level in the
Electric Engagement/Holistic Transitions. But in Holistic Transition,
hydrogen is nevertheless used for hard-to-decarbonise sectors like heavy
industrial manufacturing, though light road transport and building heating
are mainly electric.

ESO says that it will be possible to get to zero net
power before 2035, if Biomass with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is
also used. They say all their new zero pathways ‘achieve a decarbonised
power sector by 2035 at the latest. Holistic Transition & Electric
Engagement achieve this in 2033 and 2034 respectively. This is driven by
high levels of wind & solar uptake, reduced use of unabated gas & initial
deployments of bioenergy with carbon capture & storage (BECCS).’ And ESO
insist that ‘negative emissions with power BECCS from 2030 onwards are
essential to achieving net zero power.’

However, the ESO doesn’t see nuclear expanding very much until around 2040 and even on the Electric Engagement scenario it only reaches 151 TWh from 22GW by 2050 (less than
the government’s target of 24GW), compared with 380 TWh for offshore wind.
But not everyone sees it that way. The growth-orientated Sci-Tech lobby
group UKDayOne is pushing for nuclear, and says ‘the Government should
aim to have built or begun constructing 8-10 additional gigawatt-scale
nuclear plants by 2040.’ It points to modelling by Carbon Free Europe (CFE)
which it says suggests that ‘the most cost-effective path to net zero for
the UK involves building 61GW of nuclear by 2050, due to reduced
requirements for grid balancing’.

That would certainly cut back on offshore
wind. Or as CFE puts it ‘failure to reach this level of [nuclear]
deployment will require building significantly more offshore wind &
increase transition costs,’ adding that ‘a breakthrough in nuclear costs
could unlock additional opportunities for nuclear applications’.

But will that happen? No sign yet with the £20bn Sizewell C plan still stalled and
novel SMRs at best some way off. The new government may not be willing to
also push ahead just now with a decision on Sizewell C. It is certainly
interesting that the claim made by the last government that nuclear was a
‘sustainable and environmentally friendly energy generation solution’ has
not yet been backed up by DESNZ research. It’s evidently still ‘work in
progress’. Given also its high cost, and the governments money shortage,
maybe it’s time for a U turn?

Renew Extra 3rd Aug 2024

https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2024/08/in-its-new-future-energy-scenarios.html

August 5, 2024 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Eastern Europe’s purchase of US nuclear reactors is primarily about military ties, not climate change

Military linkages. For countries like Romania and Poland, the rationale offered for supporting nuclear energy, namely climate mitigation, is just one face of the coin. A parallel set of military developments are also at play.

Poland also tied itself militarily to the United States by becoming part of US missile defense infrastructure.

It should be clear who would profit most at the expense of the Polish public.

By Maha Siddiqui, M.V. Ramana | August 2, 2024,  https://thebulletin.org/2024/08/eastern-europes-purchase-of-us-nuclear-reactors-is-primarily-about-military-ties-not-climate-change/

The nuclear industry hasn’t been so excited in a while. From the pledge to triple nuclear energy by 2050 made by around 20 countries during the 28th UN climate summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates to the recent report to the G20 by the International Atomic Energy Agency on speeding up investment into nuclear power to meet net zero goals, there is much talk about a new round of nuclear reactor construction.

Countries in Eastern Europe, such as Poland, are active participants in this effort to rebrand nuclear energy as clean and climate friendly. Poland’s inclusion in this list should be surprising: Its electricity primarily comes from fossil fuels, and the country has not committed to any net-zero target, making it “the lowest-placed EU nation” in its ability to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Nevertheless, in 2023, Poland’s government announced plans to import nuclear reactors.

Even though it promotes nuclear power as a way to meet climate goals, Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe seem to be using nuclear purchases for geopolitical leverage with the United States. That desire is evident in their parallel actions in the military front. Given the ongoing war in Ukraine and tensions in multiple parts of the world, the combination of geopolitics and nuclear technology may prove dangerous, even as it is ineffective at mitigating climate change.

Nuclear talk. In recent years, Poland has entered into a number of agreements to build nuclear reactors, including the in-vogue small modular reactors (SMRs) from the United States and large reactors from South Korea. Poland has attempted to build nuclear reactors in the past—in 2009, then-Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced plans to build two nuclear plants, with the first to begin operating in 2020. Those plans went nowhere.

Seen in that light, the rash of recent announcements have a desperate ring to them. Not surprisingly, Tusk has continued to advocate for building nuclear reactors, stating in November 2023 that Poland had to pursue nuclear energy “as quickly as possible.” But he has pushed back plans to start construction: The “first pour of concrete”—which is the traditional marker of project initiation—is now scheduled for 2028, two years after the earlier projected date of 2026.

Romania has taken a somewhat similar path. In 2021, on the sidelines of the 26th UN climate conference in Glasgow, Romanian officials signed a cooperation agreement on small modular reactors with NuScale Power. At that time, Romanian Energy Minister Virgil Popescu talked about developing SMRs “to meet [Romania’s] critical energy demand and green targets and to secure a quality future for the generations to come.” (Since then, NuScale’s first proposed SMR project in the United States has collapsed because of massive cost increases, and it is uncertain if the Romanian project will move forward.)

Military linkages. For countries like Romania and Poland, the rationale offered for supporting nuclear energy, namely climate mitigation, is just one face of the coin. A parallel set of military developments are also at play.

In April, Poland President Andrzej Duda publicly expressed a readiness to host NATO nuclear weapons. In an interview published in a Polish news outlet, he revealed that nuclear sharing had been discussed with the United States “for some time.” Although not widely noted at that time, the previous Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki had also indicated an “interest in hosting nuclear weapons under NATO’s nuclear-sharing policy.”

The interest in hosting nuclear weapons aligns with Poland’s efforts to position itself as close to the West ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Among countries that were formerly part of the Warsaw Pact with the Soviet Union, Poland was among the first three countries to join NATO, together with Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Poland also tied itself militarily to the United States by becoming part of US missile defense infrastructure. The process started during the George W. Bush administration and continued through the successive US presidencies. Most recently, as part of the Biden administration’s 2024 budget for defense, the Missile Defense Agency requested funding to complete construction of a site in Poland to deploy the Aegis Ashore missile defense system and purchase missiles for this site.

Poland has emerged as one of Europe’s largest importers of military equipment, second only to Ukraine, buying military equipment worth billions of dollars from the United States. In the 2023 fiscal year alone, Poland purchased Apache Helicopters ($12 billion), High Mobility Artillery Rocket System ($10 billion), Integrated Air And Missile Defense Battle Command System ($4 billion), and M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks ($3.75 billion).

Such significant imports are a good indicator that the country is seeking to ally with the United States. While Poland still lags far behind traditional US allies and arms importers like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Australia, Poland is rapidly expanding such imports. The country’s military spending in 2023 was 75 percent higher than in 2022 and 181 percent higher than in 2014. Poland was also among the world’s 20 largest importers of weapons in the 2019-2023 period, with its share of imports jumping four-fold compared to the previous 2014-2018 period. Of these imports, nearly half came from the United States.

US officials see the purchase of military equipment as one of the many ways the United States can bring Poland closer in geopolitical terms. Another is to have them buy US nuclear reactors.

In its “Integrated Country Strategy” for Poland from June 2022, the US State Department’s top two mission goals were stated to involve military engagement and adoption of new energy technology, including nuclear power. The document praises the “potential partnership with the United States to develop large-scale nuclear power plants with US technology” because it “could result in over $18 billion dollars in US exports and strategically tie our two countries even more tightly together over the coming century.” It should be clear who would profit most at the expense of the Polish public.

The United States has historically tried to use nuclear development to expand its empire and influence. During the Cold War, US nuclear power companies “had a specific agenda to promote the advancement of nuclear technology in non-communist countries,” which was one reason they exported nuclear reactors to South Korea.

By all evidence, the focus on nuclear energy in Eastern Europe appears not to be driven mainly by climate change but by old-fashioned geopolitics in significant proportion. Were the urgency of climate change really driving investment in nuclear energy, Poland should have considered purchasing reactors also from Russia or China. In fact, over the past decade, Russia has dominated the export market for nuclear power plants and China has built more nuclear plants than any other country.

Why it matters. The geopolitical framing of imports of nuclear energy is a problem, especially in Eastern Europe where there is an active war in neighboring Ukraine. Building up military forces using US technology and expanding US military presence in the region, even possibly basing nuclear weapons in Poland, may increase the likelihood of a catastrophic war between Russia and NATO. Such a war would be compounded by the potential for radioactive contamination from deliberate or inadvertent attacks on nuclear reactors, as illustrated by the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine, which Russia has occupied since March 2022 and used as a source of leverage.

Such geopolitical games also make dealing with climate change much more difficult. A geopolitical view, by its very nature, conceives of problems essentially as a zero-sum competition: Countries will avoid cooperating with each other. But as happened with the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of cooperation will undermine the chances of quickly reducing global emissions.

The analyst and disarmament activist Andrew Lichterman recently explained that anyone interested in a more fair, peaceful, and ecologically sustainable global society should avoid using “the conceptual frame of geopolitics” which “is limited to the imperatives of holding and deploying power in what is portrayed as an endless, inevitable struggle for dominance among the world’s most powerful states.”

Investments in nuclear power in Eastern Europe hide geopolitical and military motivations behind a smoke screen of fighting climate change. When these motivations result in the massive acquisition of military equipment, manufacturing and operating them will increase carbon dioxide emissions. Worse, military buildups will also increase the risk of conflict, potentially leading to a catastrophic war that could involve nuclear weapons.

August 4, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

Generic Design Assessment Step 1 of the Holtec SMR: statement of findings

 Holtec International’s SMR-300 small modular reactor design has
completed Step 1 of the UK’s generic design assessment (GDA) process and
will now progress to Step 2, which is expected to last for 14 months. The
Environment Agency, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and Natural
Resources Wales announced on 1 August that they are progressing to the next
phase of their assessment of the design.

Holtec has now launched a comments
process, enabling anyone to submit comments and questions about the reactor
design to the company for its response.

 Nucnet 1st Aug 2024

https://www.nucnet.org/news/holtec-s-smr-300-nuclear-plant-completes-first-step-of-generic-design-assessment-8-4-2024

August 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

First NATO F-16’s delivered to Ukraine (nuclear capable)

 Bruce K. Gagnon, 2 Aug 24, https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2024/08/first-nato-f-16s-delivered-to-ukraine.html

Reports indicate that six F-16’s have been sent to Ukraine (UAF) from the Netherlands to be used against Russia. 

Doesn’t this mean that US-NATO are fully at war with Russia? Of course the US-NATO deny that fact but we are surely used to their endless lies by now!

It appears the war planes will be based in western Ukraine – far from the front lines in eastern Ukraine which is closest to the Russia border.

Previously, a number of NATO states, including the US, France, Bulgaria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden, formed a so-called ‘F-16 coalition’, pledging to provide Kiev with 79 of the American-made fighter jets as well as to train Ukrainian pilots to operate the aircraft.

While Ukraine is pinning high hopes on the fighter jets, the truth is that NATO is only supplying them to make up for the heavy losses of the UAF and prolong the conflict.

In addition the US-NATO war mongering ‘coalition’ must supply the weapons for the planes as well as the maintenance crews since Ukraine does not have the technical capacity to keep the planes in the air by themselves. The west will also likely need to supply the repair parts and the jet fuel for the planes.

Because it takes years to properly train pilots some have speculated that US-NATO pilots (wearing Ukraine military uniforms) might end up being the ones flying in combat against Russia. Especially after the first six planes get shot down and the Ukrainian F-16’s crews might be quickly erased.


There are reports that Moldova could be used as the main base for F-16 fighters. This will allow NATO countries to avoid becoming targets for Russian missiles, but at the same time provoke the Kremlin to a harsh reaction. (Any F-16 that enters Ukraine from a NATO country and continues to fly on to its combat area will be seen as an attack by NATO enabling Russia to legally attack the country of origin. Theoretically, this could start WW III – with a nuclear power no less. Note, however, that Moldova is not a NATO member. At any rate, the West is courting disaster.) This will increase the escalation and take the conflict in Ukraine to a new level, using Moldova for this purpose.

These planes will have the capability to carry US supplied nuclear weapons and fire them from a distance at ‘Russian targets’ that often means nothing more than population centers as Ukraine has been doing since the war began in 2014 after the US orchestrated coup d’état in Kiev. Moscow has said that it must conclude that any F-16’s in the air heading toward Russia could be carrying nukes and will respond accordingly.

The US long ago positioned nuclear weapons throughout Europe as you can see in the graphic just below. [on original]

Out of their complete desperation, as the US-NATO lose the war in Ukraine, they very well could decide to use these nukes now deployed in Europe. If that decision is made (and it would be made in Washington) then we are without a doubt off to the nuclear war races.

Now is the time for people not suffering from terminal imperial insanity to speak loudly – publicly and with determination – if we hope to survive the decline of the US-NATO killing project

August 4, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Replacing the UK’s nuclear deterrent: The Warhead Programme-  without appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny.

 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9777/ 2 Aug 24

Since 2006 work has been underway on several programmes that will maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the current system. Much of the focus in that time has been on the delivery of a new class of ballistic missile submarine (the Dreadnought class), which are expected to enter service from the early 2030s. However, a decision on replacing the UK’s Mk4/A nuclear warhead was also awaited and work on possible options had been ongoing. After a decision was deferred in 2010, one was widely expected to be taken as part of the Government’s Integrated Defence and Security Review in 2021.

In February 2020, however, a US official disclosed the existence of a UK replacement warhead programme, which the Government subsequently confirmed in a Statement to the House. That revelation prompted widespread criticism that a decision appeared to have been taken without an official Government announcement or appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny.

The programme is currently in its concept phase (the first phase in any Ministry of Defence procurement project). Details on timeframe and costings are expected to be matured as the programme progresses.

August 3, 2024 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Britain’s nuclear submarine software built by Belarusian engineers

Fears that coding work outsourced to Russia and its allies could pose national security threat

Telegraph UK, By Camilla Turner, 2 August 2024

Britain’s nuclear submarine engineers use software that was designed in Russia and Belarus, in contravention of Ministry of Defence rules, The Telegraph can reveal.

The software should have been created by UK-based staff with security clearance, but its design was partially outsourced to developers in Siberia and Minsk, the capital of Belarus.

There are fears that the code built by the Russian and Belarussian developers could be exploited to reveal the location of Britain’s submarines.

The Telegraph understands that the MoD considered the security breach a serious threat to UK defence and launched an investigation.

The inquiry discovered that the firm that outsourced the work – on a staff intranet for nuclear submarine engineers – to Russia and Belarus initially kept it secret and discussed whether it could disguise where the workers were based by giving them fake names of dead British people.

As well as the UK’s submarine fleet, there are fears that further defence capabilities could have been compromised because it has emerged that a previous project was also outsourced to developers in Minsk.

National security in jeopardy

On Friday, experts warned that the UK’s national security could have been jeopardised if personal details of those with classified knowledge of Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet fell into the wrong hands, leaving them exposed to blackmail or targeted attacks.

Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary, said the breach “potentially left us vulnerable to the undermining of our national security”. He added: “Time and time again, countries like China and Russia have targeted the supply chains of our defence contractors. This is not a new phenomenon.”

James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, said it was an “absolute imperative” to ensure “our most sensitive defence programmes have total resilience and security”……………………………………………………………. more https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/02/britains-nuclear-submarine-software-designed-russia-belarus/

August 3, 2024 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Renewables are crushing gas-fired power

Europe’s electricity system is transitioning at breakneck speed.
Renewables are displacing thermal generation so fast that gas-fired power
has slumped to a two-decade low. Continental Europe produced less
electricity from natural gas over the first seven months of this year than
at any time since 2005, according to research by Energy Flux. A few
countries bucked the trend, but at the regional level there is no sign of
this changing any time soon. The continent’s full-throttled embrace of
wind and solar — combined with the return of French nuclear, and Alpine
hydro, milder winters and a weak economic recovery — has dislodged gas
from the heart of many EU power markets. The transformation is both
astonishing and alarming. Europe’s great gas power slump has wiped out
the equivalent of the combined annual primary gas demand of Denmark,
Ireland, Norway and Portugal since 2017. That’s roughly 240 cargoes of
liquefied natural gas (LNG) every year, no longer needed.

 Energy Flux 1st Aug 2024

https://www.energyflux.news/p/renewable-crushing-gas-fired-power-wind-solar-eu

August 3, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, renewable | Leave a comment

How much electricity comes from the Sun on summer days in the UK?

With blazing sun across the UK, the past week has seen solar energy’s
contribution to Britain’s energy mixture hit levels of up to 32% –
highlighting how much the sun can contribute to the country’s electricity
supplies. Each summer, the levels of solar energy in use rise, according to
Christelle Barnes, vice-chair at Solar Energy UK and UK general manager at
SolarEdge. “Every year, that percentage number just gets a little bit
higher. So it was typically between 25% and 27% over the last couple of
years. So just seeing numbers like 30% now is definitely showing that we’re
continuing to deploy more solar,” she told Yahoo News.

Yahoo News 31st July 2024

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/how-much-electricity-sun-summer-uk-172202857.html

 More than 885 solar panels have been installed on two Scottish Water sites
in the Central Belt, helping to save 57 tonnes of carbon a year and address
the increasing urgency of climate change. The projects have seen 512 photovoltaic (PV) panels installed at
Bothwellbank Waste Water Treatment Works in South Lanarkshire, which are
able to generate 0.23GWh of power and will offset around a fifth of the
site’s energy needs. In addition, 373 tank-mounted PV panels are now in
place at Roseberry Water Treatment Works in Midlothian, supplementing 178
panels which were installed as part of a previous scheme. The site can now
generate a total of 0.18GWh of energy, offsetting 12% of its energy needs.
Combined, these installations are expected to produce 0.41GWh of green
electricity each year – equivalent to the energy needed to boil around
1.8 million kettles annually. This latest £678,000 investment by Scottish
Water and its commercial subsidiary, Scottish Water Horizons, sees the
sites join a growing list of water and waste water treatment works which
are now either self-sufficient or partly sufficient in their power
requirements.

 Midlothian View 31st July 2024

Solar energy boost cuts carbon at Central Belt treatment works

August 3, 2024 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Blackwater Against New Nuclear Power Group (BANNG)campaigners say company’s claims over Bradwell B are false

Maldon Standard, By Brandon Penny, 31st July 24

A CAMPAIGN group has hit out at claims a potential site for a new nuclear power station is “well connected.”

The current government nuclear policy statement identifies Bradwell as a site for nuclear energy until the end of 2025.

Plans for a Chinese-led nuclear power station in Bradwell, known as Bradwell B, are no longer progressing.

Campaigners Blackwater Against New Nuclear Power Group (BANNG) claim EDF, the French company which own Bradwell’s nuclear site, has “no idea what it is talking about”.

They claim there are no grid connections, no rail connection with the closest station being eight miles away in Southminster and no local skilled workforce.

BAANG’s chairman, Professor Andy Blowers said: “EDF cannot be allowed to get away with the false and misleading claims it is making in an obvious attempt to attract developers to its site on the Essex coast adjacent to Bradwell-on-Sea. “This is a site already abandoned by EDF’s one-time partner, the Chinese developer CGN. It is a site that is wholly unsuitable for nuclear development.

“EDF have previously claimed that Bradwell and other sites it owns, offer land, grid and rail connections, a skilled workforce and support communities which makes them compelling locations for small and advanced modular reactors.”

Mr Blowers continued saying: “It’s obvious EDF has no idea what it is talking about with respect to new nuclear development at Bradwell.”

BAANG have also said: “The noise, disruption and blight imposed on a tranquil rural area over many years would be intolerable.”…………… https://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/24483433.baang-group-claim-edfs-claims-false-misleading/—

August 3, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Rolls Royce – the “burning platform”?

 There aren’t many obvious similarities between Rachel Reeves and Tufan
Erginbilgic, but the use of the “burning platform” metaphor is
something that binds them. For Erginbilgic’s actual use of the phrase to
describe Rolls-Royce soon after he became chief executive 19 months ago,
read the chancellor of the exchequer’s discovery this week of a “£22
billion black hole” in the public finances.

 Times 1st Aug 2024

https://www.thetimes.com/article/rolls-royce-growth-needed-by-rachel-reeves-98sw9l952

August 3, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Putin often cites Russia’s ‘nuclear doctrine’ governing the use of atomic weapons. But what is it?

9 News, By Associated Press, 1 August 24

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, President Vladimir Putin and other Kremlin voices have frequently threatened the West with its nuclear arsenal.

On Day 1 of the war, Putin said “whoever tries to impede us, let alone create threats for our country and its people, must know that the Russian response will be immediate and lead to consequences you have never seen in history”.

Over nearly two and a half years of fighting, the West has given Ukraine billions of dollars of advanced weapons, some of which have struck Russian soil.

And while there have been more Kremlin threats – and even the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons in Belarus, just over the border from Ukraine – so far it has remained only a blunt message.

What could finally trigger a nuclear response?

Asked that in June by international news agencies, Putin pointed to Russia’s so-called nuclear doctrine.

“Look what is written there,” he said at the St Petersburg session.

“If somebody’s actions threaten our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we consider it possible to use all means at our disposal.”

Now Russian hawks are urging him to change the doctrine to lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and Putin says the document could be modified to take into account the evolving global situation.

What is Russia’s nuclear doctrine?

Formally known as the “Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence”, it was signed by Putin in 2020 and outlines when Russia could dip into its atomic arsenal, the world’s largest.

It describes nuclear weapons as “a means of deterrence”, noting that their use is an “extreme and compelled measure”.

It declares that Russia “takes all necessary efforts to reduce the nuclear threat and prevent aggravation of interstate relations that could trigger military conflicts, including nuclear ones”.

The document states that “nuclear deterrence is aimed to provide comprehension by a potential adversary of the inevitability of retaliation in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.”

What does it say will trigger using nuclear weapons?

Russia could use them, the doctrine says, “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy”.

It says nuclear weapons could be used under the following specific situations:

  • If reliable information is received about the launch of ballistic missiles targeting the territory of Russia or its allies.
  • If nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction are used against Russia or its allies.
  • If an enemy attack with conventional weapons threatens Russia’s existence.
  • If there are attacks on critically important Russian government or military facilities that could undermine the country’s retaliatory nuclear strike capability.

Has any attack so far come close to crossing this threshold?

As Russia attacked parts of northeastern Ukraine near the city of Kharkiv, Washington has allowed Kyiv to use longer-range US-supplied weapons for strikes in Russian territory in the border region.

But these attacks have been limited in scope and would not seem to pose an existential threat that would fall under the nuclear doctrine.

However, the hawks in Moscow have pointed to a series of Ukrainian attacks on Russian air bases that host long-range nuclear capable bombers earlier in the conflict, as well as recent raids on early warning radars.

They say these circumstances would seem to warrant the use of nuclear weapons as laid out in the doctrine…………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.9news.com.au/world/russia-nuclear-weapons-vladimir-putin/c2c4b211-658d-4b11-b6bc-656b56c5bd39

August 2, 2024 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK – the Ed Milliband Nuclear Nonsense Show

Great British Nuclear’s life started out as a Boris Johnson publicity stunt to get some cheap headlines, and it’s been downhill since then. It took two years to set up (civil servants at DESNZ kept asking what this particular Bojo wet dream was all about, and are still waiting for an answer), has no proper governance arrangements, is run by a bunch of nuclear non-entities, and so far has had only one task: to run “the competition “to see who will be the recipient of pots of taxpayers’ money to bring forward our “world-beating” Small Modular Reactor programmes.

Jonathon Porritt, Sustainability Campaigner and Writer, 31 July 24

1 I’m loving the Ed Miliband Show! The curtain went up on July 5th, and it’s been one reveal a day since then………………………………….

On Friday, he brought forward the Bill to establish Great British Energy (GBE), a cornerstone of Labour’s manifesto and its Net Zero ambitions.  The one thing that grabbed everyone’s attention was the new partnership between GBE and the Crown Estate to unlock £60 billion of private investment in offshore wind – with a view to securing 30 GW of electricity before 2030 (enough to provide electricity for 20 million homes). To help make this happen, another Bill was introduced to overcome some of the barriers that the Crown Estate currently faces in expediting investment at that scale. Serious stuff!

The GBE Bill also referenced another partnership – with Great British Nuclear, with the emphasis on “exploring how Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear will work together”. And end more of the same kind of meaningless blather!

Let me elaborate a bit by way of contrasting these two strategic partners.

1. The Crown Estate

This is a powerful organisation that knows what it’s doing, does it with a real sense of purpose, and has been leading the charge on offshore wind for the last decade. It has a tried and tested CEO (Dan Labbad), formerly CEO of property developer Lend Lease here in the UK), a proven sustainability champion, deal-maker and job-creator.

Other big players in the energy sector get this kind of proposition and are already coming forward with their “in principle” commitments.

2. Great British Nuclear

Great British Nuclear’s life started out as a Boris Johnson publicity stunt to get some cheap headlines, and it’s been downhill since then. It took two years to set up (civil servants at DESNZ kept asking what this particular Bojo wet dream was all about, and are still waiting for an answer), has no proper governance arrangements, is run by a bunch of nuclear non-entities, and so far has had only one task: to run “the competition “to see who will be the recipient of pots of taxpayers’ money to bring forward our “world-beating” Small Modular Reactor programmes.

It’s struggled with this somewhat limited remit (already nine months behind schedule, with at least another six months to go), even though everybody already knows that the Government’s favoured SMR black hole will be Rolls Royce – there’s nothing worse for ministers than having Tufan Erginbilgic (Rolls Royce’s powerful, whining bully of a CEO) making trouble for you.

So, Ed, where are you going to go with all this? Both the Crown Estate and Great British Energy will, theoretically, help you “de-risk” prospects for critical private sector investors. The Crown Estate will do it for real, reducing the cost of capital, smoothing planning consents, securing supply chains, creating jobs – and, in due course (if not before 2030) – making offshore wind significantly cheaper. Exactly as has happened in Denmark. Great British Nuclear will suck you in, suck you dry, and do none of that…………..

The Treasury has always been less enthusiastic about nuclear power than the rest of government. It won’t object to a few more tens of millions bunged at Rolls Royce or a few more well-paid nuclear wastrels at Culham (emphasising the links with our inconceivably costly nuclear weapons establishment).

But the tens of billions that will be required to de-risk private sector investment in Sizewell C – that’s another matter. This is the time, surely, to let Sizewell C die under the weight of its own monstrous irrelevance.

Sizewell C will obviously make literally zero contribution to the 2030 target that Labour has for decarbonising the grid. As it happens, Ed shouldn’t really be worrying too much about 2030 anyway. This isn’t going to happen (full marks to those sad gits at the Telegraph for spotting this!), but it really doesn’t matter. The key date is 2029, the date of the next election, not 2030.

……………………………..So, Ed, keep your eyes on the prize: making people feel good (and possibly even a bit excited) about the UK’s low-carbon future – in terms of jobs, skills, supply chains, lower bills and so on. Deep down, you must know as well as I do that’s all about prioritising real delivery partners (viz the Crown Estate), not about preposterous pipe-dreaming fantasists in the nuclear industry.  https://www.jonathonporritt.com/go-ed-go/

August 1, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Government partnership is needed if Dutch pension fund PME is to make “risky” nuclear investment.

Dutch pension fund PME keen for nuclear power investments

European Pensions , By Natalie Tuck, 30/07/24

The Dutch pension fund PME is keen to invest in nuclear investment but this must be in partnership with the Dutch government, due to it being such a “risky investment”.

The pension fund, for those working in the tech and metal industry, has published a position paper on investing in nuclear energy in the wake of the publication of the Dutch National Energy System Plan, which looks to scale up the use of nuclear energy in the Netherlands………………………….

Making the case for nuclear energy, PME said the “manageable disadvantage” of radioactive waste and the high level of safety of nuclear power plants weigh into PME’s positive view of nuclear energy as a stable addition to the energy mix……………

When it comes to financing, PME said the “high cost of construction and the long duration of construction make nuclear power plants a very risky investment”.

The paper continued: “Financing nuclear power plants requires a leading role of the state, which will have to assume a significant part of the risk in all phases of the nuclear power plant’s life. Security of return is a basic requirement for PME so that funding also contributes to participants’ pension accrual and pensioners.

“The construction of nuclear power plants takes a very long time and is very costly. It is precisely for these reasons that risk-return requirements are paramount in any financing of nuclear power.”

It therefore advocates for the use of a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model to finance the construction of nuclear power plants. In this model, private parties bear the investment, and receive a fixed ‘fair return’ (the RAB fee) from the start of construction.In the RAB model, at each stage, the primary risk is shared between the state and the financing market party or parties.

……………………….“In addition to the quantitative participant survey, PME holds focus groups with participants, retirees and employers. PME also organises retiree meetings where the topic of nuclear energy was discussed recently. The basic attitude toward nuclear energy is almost always positive among the majority of constituents. However, there are concerns about the yield, the risks, the safety of nuclear power plants and the problem of radioactive waste,” PME stated.  https://www.europeanpensions.net/ep/Dutch-pension-fund-PME-keen-for-nuclear-power-investments.php

August 1, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Greasing Palms: The Thales Blueprint for Corruption

July 30, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.com/greasing-palms-the-thales-blueprint-for-corruption/

It is a point verging on the trite: an arms corporation suspected of engaging in corrupt practices, spoiling dignitaries and officials and undermining the body politic. But one such corporation is France’s Thales defence group, which saw raids on their offices in France, the Netherlands and Spain on June 26 and June 28. The prosecutors are keen to pursue charges ranging from standard corruption and attempts to influence foreign officials to instances of criminal association and money laundering.

It is clear in this that even the French republic, despite having a narcotics grade addiction to the international arms industry, thought that Thales might have gone just that bit far. Some 65 investigators from the Nanterre-based office responsible for battling corruption, financial and fiscal offences have been thrown into the operation. A further twelve magistrates from the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF), with the assistance of the European agency Eurojust, aided by Dutch and Spanish officials, have all been involved in this sprawling enterprise.

The police raids arise from two separate investigations. The first, starting at the end of 2016, involved suspicions of corruption pertaining to a foreign official, criminal association and money laundering. The topics of interest: the sale of submarines to Brazil, along with the construction of a naval base.

The second commenced in June 2023, with claims of suspected corruption and influence peddling, criminal conspiracy and money laundering connected with the supply of military and civilian equipment to overseas clients.

Giving little by way of details, a spokesperson for Thales insisted that the corporation “strictly complies with national and international regulations.” It had “developed and implemented a global compliance program that meets with the highest industry standards.” That, it may well turn out, is precisely the problem.

The company propaganda on such compliance with national and international regulations is plentiful and fabulously cynical. After a time perusing such material, one forgets that this is a defence outfit much dedicated to sowing the seeds of death, a far from benign purpose. Group Secretary and General Counsel Isabelle Simon, for instance, is quoted as saying that the company, over the course of two decades “has developed a robust policy on ethics, integrity and compliance, which are the foundations of our social responsibility and the key to building a world we can all trust.”

The anti-corruption policy, so it is claimed, is also “regularly reviewed and updated to reflect increasingly strict international rules and requirements on corruption and influence peddling,” a point “further strengthened by Thales’s progress towards ISO 37001 certification.”

Typical of the guff surrounding modern organisational behaviour, the company wonks assume that workshops and training sessions are the way to go when inspiring a spirit of compliance. The more sessions you run, and the more do you do, the more enlightened you become. In boasting about its “zero tolerance on corruption,” we are told that 11,270 “training sessions on corruption and influence peddling were delivered in 2019-2020.”

Other features are also mentioned to ward off any suspicions, among them a code of conduct intended to stomp on any corrupt practices, a “corruption and influence peddling risk map,” a disciplinary system, an anti-bribery management system and an internal whistleblowing program.

Thales also got what it wanted, effectively bypassing, with the blessing of the defence department, a competitive tender process. This took place despite a 2017 offer from the global munitions company, NIOA, and the ANAO’s own recommendation to pursue an appropriate tender option. All in all, the audit found that “Defence’s management of probity was not effective and there was evidence of unethical conduct.”

This is putting it mildly, given that Thales had not only been involved in drafting the criteria for the request for tender (RTF) documents (some 28 workshops were held for that purpose between October 2018 and August 2019), but did so deficiently. In October 2019, this very point was made by the Defence Department, which noted no fewer than 199 “non-compliances” by the company against the RTF.

Apart from giving officialdom their time in the sun of oversight and regulation, chastening investigations into corruption do little to alter the spoliation that arises from the defence industry. Defence contractors are regularly feted by government authorities, often with the connivance of the revolving door. Yesterday’s officials are today’s arms sales consultants. The defence sector, notably for such countries as France, is simply too lucrative and important to be cleansed of its unscrupulousness. Even as these investigations are taking place to ruffle Thales, the Brazilian military establishment, by way of example, has happily continued doing business with the French weapons giant.

In February last year, the defence group trumpeted securing a contract with the Brazilian Airspace Control Department (DECEA) for the supply and installation of ADS-B ground surveillance stations to improve the safety of commercial civil aviation. The effort is not negligible: 66 stations to be installed in over 20 Brazilian states.

On June 17, the company announced the acquisition by the Brazilian Air Force of the Ground Master 200 Multi-mission All-in-one (GM 200 MM/A) tactical air surveillance radars. With much bluster, the announcement goes on to describe such radars as giving the user “superior situational awareness for air surveillance, as well as ground-based air defence (GBAD) operations up to Mid-Range Air-Defence (MRAD).” Some gloating follows: “The contract signed with the FAB consolidates Thales’ position as a leader in the radar market in Brazil.” One can only wonder how many palms were greased, and local regulations breached, for that to happen.

July 31, 2024 Posted by | France, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »