nuclear-news

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

CAMPAIGNERS opposing the development of nuclear power in Bradwell-on-Sea say they believe ‘new nuclear’ in the area “remains dead in the water”.

 https://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/24059324.bradwell-anti-nuclear-campaigners-address-government-roadmap/ 24 Jan 24

Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) has been fighting its cause for 15 years.

On January 11, the Government released its Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050.

BANNG claims it means the original eight government-listed coastal sites, including Bradwell, are no longer the only sites earmarked for nuclear deployment.

They say new nuclear power stations will only be sited in “suitable locations” identified by developers based on a set of criteria. 

BANNG chairman Professor Andy Blowers said: “This new approach to siting effectively rules Bradwell out of any further consideration. 

“As we have strenuously demonstrated over the last 15 years, Bradwell is a most unsuitable site and the Blackwater communities are overwhelmingly opposed to nuclear development in such a fragile location, increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.”

He added: “BANNG welcomes the effective delisting of the Bradwell site. Delisting is something we have insisted on since the list was first compiled more than a decade ago. 

“We are at a loss to understand what ‘certain advantages’ can conceivably be attributed to the site. 

“Rather as the myriad evidence accumulated and published over the years shows, Bradwell is a wholly unsuitable and unsatisfactory site for the development of nuclear power at whatever scale and capacity.”

A BANNG spokesman said: “A major problem is the vulnerability of the site to flooding, and to storm surges and coastal processes that are intensifying as the impacts of climate change begin to take hold on this fragile coastline

They added: “There are other significant reasons why Bradwell should be off the Nuclear Road Map. 

“The Blackwater area has precious environments in land, sea and sky which are protected, conserved and significant. 

“The intrusion of a mega power station or a cluster of smaller reactors would prove intrusive, polluting and detrimental to habitats and to human wellbeing. 

“Further, there would be dangerous highly radioactive wastes stored on the site for future generations to cope with, along with all the other problems of climate change.

“Above all, the communities around the Blackwater have over the years overwhelmingly declared against new nuclear development at the Bradwell site. 

“New nuclear is not welcome here.”

January 25, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

UK Government’s nuclear power plans a roadmap to a dead-end – CND

“The debate and investment into trying to develop new nuclear energy projects divert funds and political motivation away from further developing truly renewable energy sources, which is the real solution.”

 Sara Medi Jones, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), assesses the government’s latest nuclear power announcement m https://labouroutlook.org/2024/01/23/governments-nuclear-power-plans-a-roadmap-to-a-dead-end-cnd/

It’s only mid-January and we have already had two major nuclear power announcements in 2024. A long-awaited “roadmap” of nuclear power expansion was unveiled earlier this month, with the government promising to accelerate new nuclear projects. And this week we’ve just heard that construction of the Sizewell C nuclear station in Suffolk should be a step closer.

But the problem is – nuclear is a dead-end technology that is not the answer to our climate or energy needs.

Plans for eight new nuclear sites laid out in 2011 have largely stalled, with the only two projects to have got off the ground – Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C – beset with problems. Costs at Hinkley Point have spiralled by 30% to £33 billion, and the start date has repeatedly been pushed back. Sizewell C is struggling to attract private financing, and despite building permission finally being granted now, there are still many hurdles to clear.

The nuclear roadmap’s main aims are to “explore” another nuclear site, develop small modular reactors, secure more investment, and engage the private sector more

But we are unlikely to see any meaningful progress because nuclear power in its very essence is a dangerous and economically unsustainable technology. It burdens future generations with a potential human and environmental disaster that is not compensated for by the expensive electricity provided.

Any new nuclear projects would take decades to build. But we need an answer to our cost of living struggle and to climate change now. Even if nuclear power capacity was doubled worldwide by 2050 (a hugely ambitious ask in itself), it would only result in a 4% reduction in emissions.

The debate and investment into trying to develop new nuclear energy projects divert funds and political motivation away from further developing truly renewable energy sources, which is the real solution.

We must also bear in mind the main reason this government is so in favour of nuclear power: it helps to ensure the infrastructure and skilled personnel is in place to maintain and manufacture Britain’s nuclear weapons system, Trident. During this time of global instability and increased nuclear risk, Britain would do well to forget about propping up their weapons of mass destruction and instead focus on delivering the things that people in this country need, including a functioning and sustainable energy system.

January 25, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Italy’s Foreign Minister reveals country ceased arms shipments to Israel starting October 7 over ‘war crime’ concerns

The Times of Israel, Mon, 22 Jan 2024,  https://www.sott.net/article/488099-Italys-FM-reveals-country-ceased-arms-shipments-to-Israel-starting-October-7-over-war-crime-concerns

Italian Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Antonio Tajani told local media Saturday that his country had halted all arms shipments to Israel since Hamas’s brutal October 7 onslaught.

The minister’s comments, made in an interview with Italian newspapers Nazione, Giorno, and Resto del Carlino, were a response to a demand by opposition leader Elly Schlein that the Italian government stop weapons exports to the Middle East. Tajani accused her of being “misinformed.”

“Since October 7, we have decided not to send any more arms to Israel, so there is no need to discuss this point,” said Tajani, according to a report from Italian news agency ANSA.

Speaking at a Friday meeting of the center-left Democratic Party, which she heads, Schlein said that “we must face the issue of avoiding fueling these conflicts, of avoiding sending arms and exporting arms to conflicts, to the conflict in the Middle East, in this case particularly to Israel,” according to ANSA.

“We cannot risk weapons being used to commit what could be construed as war crimes,” added the opposition lawmaker.

According to Israeli news site Walla, some five percent of Israeli arms purchases over the past decade have come from Italy, which include helicopters and naval artillery.

Comment: At irregular intervals over the past few years Italy’s dockworkers and border staff have protested and taken strike action against supplying Israel with arms.
In separate news, Tajani said in an interview with Italian radio Friday that his country would be willing to send troops to a peacekeeping mission in Gaza, ANSA reported.

On Sunday, following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s stated refusal to accept a two-state formula for peace, Tajani told reporters that President Isaac Herzog is nonetheless open to such a solution, according to a report in Italian daily Il Tempo.

Tajani, a former air force officer who has led the conservative Forza Italia party since the death of its chairman Silvio Berlusconi in July, made an early solidarity visit to Israel at the start of the war on Hamas, and in November reaffirmed with other G7 nations his belief in Israel’s right to defend itself, within the bounds of international law, against Hamas aggression.

Comment: Key point: within the bounds of international law; although numerous experts have pointed out that, as an occupying force, Israel isn’t ‘defending itself’, these are acts of aggression, and criminal.

By December, the Italian foreign minister struck a more critical tone, condemning Israel for shooting inside a Gaza church. In January, as president of the G7, Tajani explored with other foreign ministers in the group the possibility of applying pressure on Israel to bring the war to a “rapid” end.

On the subject of South Africa’s ongoing claim at the International Court of Justice that Israel is committing “genocide” against Gazans, Tajani has said that although Israel has hit civilians in Gaza, it is not committing genocide.

Berlusconi, the erstwhile leader of Tajani’s party, and a colorful, scandal-ridden, media mogul who served as Italy’s prime minister for a cumulative nine years, was known to be a strong supporter of Israel, even raising the possibility that the Jewish state join the European Union. It was under Berlusconi that Italy sold 30 jet trainers to Israel, in a billion-dollar deal. Though critical of Israel’s West Bank settlements, Berlusconi at one time stated that the West should support Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


Comment: Notably Italy, and Spain, despite pressure from the US, refused to send support to the US-UK for their naval campaign against Yemen: Iran warns it could cut off Mediterranean Sea as France, Spain and Italy pull out of Red Sea Op – Israeli vessel hit off India’s coast

January 24, 2024 Posted by | Israel, Italy, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Swastikas seen on US-made Ukrainian military hardware (VIDEO)


 https://www.rt.com/russia/590928-bradley-ifv-ukraine-swastikas/ 22 Jan 24

Nazi symbols can be seen in footage taken by a local journalist covering the frontline

A video featuring a Ukrainian crew repairing a US-supplied Bradley infantry fighting vehicle near the frontline with Russia has revealed the apparent fondness for Nazi symbols among Kiev’s forces.

The footage, which was shared online by journalist Alla Khotshnyavska, showed a Ukrainian crew repairing the IFV’s tracks at an unspecified location in Donbass. Covered in mud, the Bradley sports a pair of swastikas scratched into the dirt on the side of the vehicle.

Radical Ukrainian nationalists played a key role in toppling the government in Kiev in 2014, and later attained significant influence in the country’s military. Their ideology stems from the forces that collaborated with the invading Nazis against the Soviet Union during World War II.

The presence of far-right activists, including neo-Nazis, in the Ukrainian armed forces was widely acknowledged in the West until hostilities with Russia erupted in February 2022.

Nazi insignia worn by Ukrainian troops has regularly been caught on camera. In one example, a member of President Vladimir Zelensky’s guards was seen with a skull and bones patch on his uniform when the Ukrainian leader was visiting the front line in September 2022. The image closely resembled the insignia of the 3rd SS Panzer Division ‘Totenkopf’.

The same month, a Ukrainian armored vehicle with a swastika painted on it was filmed by a crew from German television channel N-TV.

Last year, former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko wore a military-style shirt with a patch featuring another Nazi-linked symbol, the Black Sun (or ‘Sonnenrad’), as he was delivering equipment to troops.

An article by the New York Times in June acknowledged the controversial popularity of Nazi iconography in Ukraine, but claimed it did not reflect the ideology of the people using the symbols.

One of Moscow’s goals in its confrontation with Kiev is ‘denazification’ and the removal of radical Ukrainian nationalists from positions of power. Russian officials have argued that the discrimination against ethnic Russians in modern Ukraine is based on Ukrainian supremacism and is similar to Nazi ideology.

President Vladimir Putin told reporters last December that Moscow would not have been compelled to intervene in Ukraine “if they didn’t start to eradicate Russia on our historic lands in Ukraine, expel people from there, [and] declare Russians non-native.” Officials in Kiev were “crazy” to introduce such policies, he suggested.

January 24, 2024 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

German defense chief against going ‘all in’ on Ukraine

23 Jan 24,  https://www.rt.com/news/590954-germany-defense-minister-pistorius-no-ukraine-all-in/

Boris Pistorius says donating too many weapons to Kiev would weaken Berlin’s own forces

Germany should exercise some caution in its support for Ukraine, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has told the newspaper Der Tagesspiegel. He also revealed that Berlin is considering reverting to a compulsory military service system.

The defense chief warned last month that European nations have less than a decade to ramp up their military capabilities in anticipation of a potential armed confrontation with Russia, and predicted that the US would shift its focus to the Asia-Pacific region.

In an interview published on Friday, Pistorius dismissed criticisms that Germany is not sending enough weaponry to Ukraine, pointing out that Berlin is the second largest contributor to Kiev after the US. However, he stressed that shipping German-made long-range Taurus cruise missiles, which Kiev has been requesting for months, is currently out of the question.

“We have so far delivered everything that is possible,” he said, adding that Germany carefully weighs up the potential impact of each new shipment to Ukraine.

Pistorius cautioned that Berlin must also “keep an eye on its own defense capabilities” meaning that it can’t go “all in” for Ukraine as some are demanding.

“Otherwise we would be defenseless ourselves,” he warned, while calling on other European nations to ramp up their defense production, to become more independent of the US.

The German minister suggested that Russian President Vladimir Putin could eventually “attack a NATO country,” while acknowledging that such a scenario was unlikely at present. Germany must thoroughly upgrade its armed forces and civil defense, he concluded.

As part of these efforts, the Bundeswehr will simplify its recruitment policies and loosen its enlistment criteria, he noted, while mentioning the current debate on reintroducing compulsory military service.

A survey last month revealed that only 17% of German adults would be prepared to defend their country without question in case of a military conflict.

Earlier this week, Chancellor Olaf Scholz confirmed that Berlin would shell out more than €7 billion ($7.6 billion) on military aid for Ukraine this year.

Berlin provided Kiev with nearly $23 billion in aid between February 2022 and November 2023, according to the Kiel Institute for World Economy (IfW).

Since Kiev’s summer counteroffensive fizzled out with no major gains and heavy losses, top Ukrainian officials have increasingly been pressuring their Western backers for more weaponry.

January 23, 2024 Posted by | Germany, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear start-up Newcleo drops plans for British factory in favour of France

COMMENT. This is a very interesting article. For one thing, it shows that these “advanced” nuclear reactors require plutonium to get the fission process happening. It also claims that these advanced nuclear reactors can solve the problem of plutonium wastes. That is not true. The wastes resulting from this process are smaller in volume, but more highly toxic. That means that they require the same area/voume of space for disposal as the original plutonium. On another angle, it does indicate the confusion that the British government is in about the way ahead in their highly suspect “Civil Nuclear Roadmap”. And on another angle again, it shows how Macron’s France is putting all its eggs into the one nuclear basket. When we look at the extreme costs, and the extreme climate effects, Macron’s French nuclear obsession is likely to result in political suicide.

Matt Oliver, Sun, 21 January 2024,  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-start-drops-plans-british-131702123.html#:~:text=A%20British%20nuclear%20startup%20has,lobbied%20personally%20by%20Emmanuel%20Macron.

A British nuclear startup has dropped plans to build a pioneering power plant in Cumbria and will invest £4bn in France instead, after it was lobbied personally by Emmanuel Macron.

Newcleo, which is headquartered in London, is developing a type of mini nuclear power plant, known as an advanced modular reactor (AMR), that will use nuclear waste for fuel.

The company had hoped to tap into the UK’s vast stockpile of waste at Sellafield, where it wanted to invest £2bn in a waste reprocessing factory and AMR that would have created around 500 jobs.

It was also planning a similarly-sized facility in France.

But Stefano Buono, Newcleo’s chief executive and founder, said the company has now dropped the UK plans after the Government ruled out giving private companies access to the Sellafield stockpile in a nuclear industry “roadmap” published this month.

Instead, Newcleo is planning an enlarged development at an undisclosed location in the south of France, where it now plans to spend £4bn and create around 1,000 jobs, he said.

As part of that scheme, it will buy nuclear waste from French state energy giant EDF.

The company is also currently in the middle of a €1bn (£860m) fundraising.

The decision comes after the company was blocked from participating in the UK’s design competition for mini nuclear reactors.

By comparison, France has eagerly supported Newcleo and Mr Buono was lobbied repeatedly for investment by President Macron in face-to-face meetings.

Newcleo, which was also invited to last year’s “Choose France” business summit at the Palace of Versailles, has never been offered an in-person meeting with a British prime minister.

Mr Buono told The Telegraph: “Our plan initially was to use one factory in France and one in the UK.

“Now, we will double the capacity of France and we are not investing in the UK.”

He added that the company had hoped to pioneer its technology in Britain but added: “In two years, we were not able to even locate the site, so we have decided to accept the offer from France.


“We can proceed with our business model there.”

Newcleo’s decision to build its first plant abroad comes amid growing frustration within the British nuclear industry over the slow progress the Government has made towards identifying sites for new power plants.

The loss of significant investment to France will also be seen as the latest sign that Downing Street’s efforts to attract business investment are being outshone by President Macron, who has launched a charm offensive to lure companies across the Channel since Brexit.

He was the only G7 leader to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week, while he has rolled out the red carpet for business leaders including Tesla boss Elon Musk and JP Morgan banker Jamie Dimon at his annual Choose France event.

Last year’s summit resulted in major deals, with Taiwanese car battery maker ProLogium unveiling plans for a €5.2bn plant at the port of Dunkirk and Verkor, a French company, pledging a €1.6bn battery factory there too.

In the UK, six SMR developers including Rolls-Royce have been shortlisted for support under a competition run by Great British Nuclear.

Newcleo was not considered because of the AMR’s lead cooling system and unusual fuel, Mr Buono has claimed.

The company’s novel design would run on processed plutonium, helping countries such as the UK dispose of the dangerous waste, which is expensive to manage. [Ed. This ignores the fact that this process results in a smaller volume of more highly toxic waste]

At Sellafield, the UK has amassed 140 tonnes of plutonium – the world’s biggest stockpile – as a result of historic nuclear weapons programmes and abandoned efforts to develop so-called fast breeding reactors that would have used it as fuel.

A massive effort is currently under way at the Cumbrian site to safely store the waste, but Mr Buono and his colleagues have argued it could be put to better use as reactor fuel.

The entrepreneur made his fortune selling cancer treatment developer AAA to Novartis for $3.9bn (£3.2bn) in 2017, reportedly earning him $420m.

His company has the backing of the Agnelli industrialist family, which made its money from Fiat and Ferrari.

The French government is expected to confirm a deal with Newcleo later this year.

The UK Government did not respond to requests for comment.

January 22, 2024 Posted by | France, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | , , , , | Leave a comment

At least 25 killed in Russian-occupied Ukraine following missile strike, officials say

BY MIRANDA NAZZARO – 01/21/24,  https://thehill.com/policy/international/4420260-at-least-25-killed-in-russian-occupied-ukraine-following-missile-strike-officials-say/

The shelling of a market in a part of Russian-occupied Ukraine killed at least 25 people on Sunday, The Associated Press reported.

Denis Pushilin, head of the Russian-installed authorities in the city of Donetsk, said another 20 people, including two children, were wounded in the strike on the outskirts of the city, the AP reported. He claimed shells were fired by the Ukrainian military.

Pushilin claimed the area was hit with a 155 mm caliber and 152 mm caliber artillery, with shells being fired from the direction of Ukrainian cities Kurakhove and Krasnohorivka, per the news wire.

Kyiv did not comment on the event and the claims could not be independently verified, the news wire noted.

The Russian Foreign Ministry, in a translated statement, called the incident a “barbaric terrorist act against the civilian population of Russia.”

“The terrorist attacks of the Kiev regime clearly indicate its lack of political will for peace and the settlement of the conflict by diplomatic means,” the statement said. “The need to achieve all the goals and objectives of a special military operation is obvious. Security threats and acts of terrorism should not come from the territory of Ukraine.”

A fire also broke out at a chemical transport terminal at Russia’s Ust-Luga port after two explosions, the AP said, citing local media reports. Local media reported the port was attacked by Ukrainian drones and a gas tank exploded.

Yuri Zapalatsky, who heads Russia’s Kingisepp district, where the port is based, reported no causalities and that the area was on high alert, the AP reported.

Russia’s Ministry of Defense also announced Sunday that Moscow’s forces took control of the village Krokhmalne in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region, the news wire added. Ukrainian forces confirmed the settlement was occupied, describing the incident as a “temporary phenomenon.”

The war between Ukraine and Russia is approaching its two-year mark next month, with thousands of troops killed on each side.

January 22, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine | Leave a comment

Western mercenaries used to fill Kiev’s expertise gaps, ex-CIA man tells RT

 https://www.sott.net/article/488077-Western-mercenaries-used-to-fill-Kievs-expertise-gaps-ex-CIA-man-tells-RT

French fighters killed in Ukraine could have been clandestine weapons specialists, Larry Johnson has said…05

Ukraine is likely experiencing a shortage of soldiers capable of operating complex Western weapons systems, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson has told RT. A Russian report this week about a strike on “French mercenaries” in Kharkov may be a warning to would-be clandestine arms technicians that Paris plans to supply, he believes.

In response to the Russian Defense Ministry’s statement, France has denied having mercenaries in Ukraineor any other part of the world. Moscow claimed that approximately 60 foreign fighters, mostly French, were killed in the long-range attack. Meanwhile, President Emmanuel Macron has announced plans to supply additional air-launched SCALP cruise missiles to assist Kiev in its fight.

“I strongly suspect that many of those French ‘mercenaries’ – and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Brits and Americans scattered in there as well – are being brought in to help operate systems that they’ve been trained on previously in prior military careers.”

He named the US-made long-range Patriot anti-aircraft missile and the Storm Shadow, the British counterpart to SCALP, as examples of donated arms that may require competent foreign staff to deploy.

France is making itself a target by openly arming Kiev, Johnson told the broadcaster, contrasting current events with how the US acted in the past, when it sought to undermine the USSR:

“When the US ran covert operations through the CIA to fund the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets, it was done with some measure of secrecy and at least keeping up a pretense that we were not directly in conflict.

“I think Russia sent a very clear message in killing these mercenaries: If you are going to send them over here, if you are going to send that materiel, we’re gonna kill you.”

Johnson believes that Moscow could have acted in a far bolder manner in targeting Ukraine’s foreign donors, and that its reluctance to do so has been taken in the West as a sign of weakness.

“It’s not that, but the West has a track record of misinterpreting Russia on many points.”

Comment: Kiev is in critical manpower crisis as Zelensky pressures anyone semi-upright to take up arms and pretend they are soldiers…women, elderly, the infirm. French mercenaries? In a minute.

The following information is in regard to French PMCs (Private Military Company):

Site: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

With the ongoing developments in Ukraine, French PMCs offer their services to train Ukrainian forces in Eastern European countries. Since June 2022, they have been bringing onboard volunteers to participate in hostilities on Kiev’s side. Former members of the armed forces of EU countries and nationals of African countries are their first choice. French nationals taking part in the hostilities in Ukraine often get there via foreign PMCs or the Ukrainian International Legion.

Under French law, most of them do not fall under the Criminal Code article on mercenarism, because their remuneration for taking part in combat operations does not exceed the salary paid under a corresponding position in the French armed forces. Ukrainians that go to Ukraine from France in order to participate in the conflict, including the ones who are “on leave” from the French Foreign Legion are not qualified as mercenaries even if they hold French citizenship, since the people who are originally from a country participating in an armed conflict cannot be considered as such.

Military support functions are often delegated to “expendable” PMCs which recruit low-level personnel on the ground. A similar arrangement is used in Ukraine as well. Former French Foreign Legion members hailing from the countries in question often act as instructors. Ample supply of personnel from the ranks of former legionnaires makes it simple to create and use expendable PMCs for missions where use of force and/or participation in hostilities is likely.

About 100 French PMCs operate internationally. They are usually headed by former gendarmerie officers, and sometimes by retired security service officers. Mostly, these firms are mission-specific outfits and are put together for limited periods (for example, Lyon-based Byblos provided evacuation of French citizens from combat zones early on during the special military operation in Ukraine).

The most prominent French PMCs are as follows:

Aeneas Groupe, founded in 2004, provides consulting, security, and defence services, and trains personnel in France and abroad.

Anticip performs a variety of missions in war zones, such as crisis management, physical protection, armed escort, and site protection. It has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan and has subsidiaries in Nigeria and the UAE.

Chiron participates in the training of Ukrainian special forces. The instructors are former military members and French special service employees.

Défense Conseil International (DCI) is one of the leading companies of that kind and is unofficially used by the French Defence Ministry to perform a wide range of missions in the interests of friendly countries where, for some reasons, the use the French Armed Forces is impractical. It operates through 23 training centres in France and branches in 50 countries, such as Brunei, India, Kuwait, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Qatar, and the UAE, to name a few. It provides combat training for ground, air and naval forces, special forces, advanced training in cybersecurity and radio electronic warfare, as well as interaction between different branches of the military. DCI operates through six subsidiary PMCs, the most famous of which – La Cofras – was hired by international organisations for demining in the Gulf area, Angola and Mozambique.

Gallice Défense is a group based in France, Europe and Africa that was founded in 2007. Its employees work under short-term contracts in the Sahel, LAC, Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East.

Geos was founded in 1998 by Stephane Gerardin, a former employee of the Main Directorate of Foreign Security (foreign intelligence), to address specific tasks abroad. It is staffed mostly by former employees of special services, the Defence Ministry and the Interior Ministry. It specialises in providing government customers with consulting services, economic intelligence, risk assessment-based analytical materials for major projects in various regions of the world, but also offers physical security and protection services. Operating in 80-plus countries, Geos has offices in Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Germany, Libya, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, Saudi Arabia, the UK, Ukraine and Venezuela,. The company is actively involved in training AFU personnel. Since June 2022, it has been recruiting volunteers to participate in combat operations on Kiev’s side. In total, at least 2,000 people have been recruited. The European Peace Foundation provides the funding. Candidates are trained in Eastern Europe.

Groupe Corpguard was founded in 2006. In 2016, it concluded a contract with the Government of Côte d’Ivoire as part of the operation to maintain peace and stability in the country.

Salamandre was founded in 1996. It brings together intelligence, counterintelligence and nuclear specialists. It has close ties with the French Directorate General for External Security and often acts on its behalf.

KBS Sécurité was founded in Lyon in 2007 as a company specialising in arms and military equipment sales. Currently, it offers security services and operates in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.

January 22, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) wants to delay completion of its review on waste dump

Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) has requested the
deadline for its opinion on Posiva Oy’s operating licence application for
the world’s first used fuel repository to be extended until the end of
2024. In September last year, it said it would not complete its review by
the end of 2023 as originally planned.

Radioactive waste management company
Posiva submitted its application, together with related information, to the
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (TEM) on 30 December 2021 for
an operating licence for the used fuel encapsulation plant and final
disposal facility currently under construction at Olkiluoto.

The repository
is expected to begin operations in the mid-2020s. Posiva is applying for an
operating licence for a period from March 2024 to the end of 2070. The
government will make the final decision on Posiva’s application, but a
positive opinion by STUK is required beforehand. The regulator began its
review in May 2022 after concluding Posiva had provided sufficient
material. The ministry had requested STUK’s opinion on the application by
the end of 2023.

However, STUK announced in September that its safety
assessment and opinion on the application was taking longer than expected
and would not be completed by that deadline.

 World Nuclear News 19th Jan 2024

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/STUK-requests-extension-to-repository-review-deadl

January 22, 2024 Posted by | Finland, wastes | Leave a comment

Even Britain’s ruling Tory party fear that their “Nuclear Roadmap” plan will end up on the scrap heap.

More nuclear power is the obvious solution to our energy security and Net Zero dilemmas. That doesn’t mean it is ever going to happen.  Conservative Home, 19 Jan 24

Last week, Claire Coutinho published the Government’s “nuclear roadmap”. Sticking with Boris Johnson’s target of having a quarter of our electricity from nuclear by 2050, this attempts to explain how we achieve the quadrupling of nuclear capacity required to achieve the necessary 24 gigawatts (GW).

Rishi Sunak calls nuclear the “perfect antidote to the energy challenges facing Britain”. ………………………..

But the Government’s nuclear ambitions face an immediate stumbling block. At present, our nuclear capacity stands at 5.9GW, produced by five power stations. These are all owned by EDF, the French state energy group. Four of those plants – producing 4.7GW – are set to close in 2028.

EDF has floated keeping them open for longer. Yet even that would require Britain to massively ramp up its nuclear capacity in the next three decades to for us to have any hope of achieving the Government’s aim to come over a bit Doctor Manhatten. Following this, Coutinho has established an ambition to invest in new nuclear capacity of between 3GW and 7GW every five years from 2030 to 2044.

Work is already in progress. Hinkley Point C in Somerset is under construction. Sizewall C is planned for Suffolk, with a final investment decision due to be made by the end of this year. The Government is considering approving the construction of a third similarly sized power station. Additionally, ministers want to build a fleet of “small modular reactors” alongside these larger plants.

………………………………….. Johnson’s tongue-in-cheek vision of an SMR in “every Labour seat” remains as much of a fantasy as any of his mooted grands projets. Putting so much faith in SMRs to deliver our nuclear dreams is wishful thinking by Coutinho. But that is true of her whole “roadmap” and the ambitions behind them.

As Sam Dumitriu points out, when Hinkley opens in 2028, it will not only be the first nuclear power station built in Britain for over three decades, but the second most expensive nuclear power station built in history on a pound-per-megawatt basis. Having been due to open in the early 2020s, it is now expected to cost £32 billion. Some expect its construction could be further delayed into the 2030s.

This bodes poorly for Coutinho’s touted “nuclear awakening”. ………….

Capital costs make up around 60 per cent of nuclear’s levelised cost of energy. The average has been estimated at $6041-per-kilowatt – over 50 per cent more than coal and 500 more than gas. Factoring in that building a nuclear power station in Britain usually takes around 13 years, and it becomes obvious why investing in nuclear remains unattractive. Financing Hinkley involved the Government agreeing to a wholly uncompetitive deal…………………………….

The Government hopes an overhaul of planning rules could allow SMRs to be approved in a variety of locations, especially brownfield sites, away from areas with population densities of more than 5,000 people per square kilometre. However, there is still plenty of opportunity for applications to be denied based on natural beauty, ecology, cultural heritage, size, or flood risk. To combat NIMBYism, we would need to stuff a few mouths with gold.

Britain’s nuclear ambitions are also hampered by our current reliance on EDF. From leading the world in nuclear technology in the 1950s, our long lag since last constructing a plant has seen a loss of know-how, leaving us reliant on EDF for larger plants. Not only has this left us having signed an expensive deal for Hinkley, but it has entrusted our energy security to a company with a record of costly delays.

This is of a piece with our long tradition of nuclear short-sightedness. As Peter Franklin has pointed out, Johnson and Sunak follow Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, and Tony Blair in making grand pronouncements of a fleet of new British nuclear reactors. Little has good came of any of them.  Amidst some substantial competition, we can count Hinkley as one of Blair’s most ignominious legacies.

We can expect Coutinho’s proposals to end up on a similar scrapheap.  Labour says they are keen on more nuclear. But they will face the same problems of regulation, construction costs, and political volatility. It might take only another Fukushima for the public to go all German on our  nuclear future…..

January 21, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Military interests are pushing new nuclear power – and the UK government has finally admitted it

……………… the latest announcement, Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050, - in this supposedly “civil” strategy – are multiple statements about addressing “civil and military nuclear ambitions” together to “identify opportunities to align the two across government”.

French president Emmanuel Macron summarises: “without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear”.

Andy Stirling Professor of Science & Technology Policy in the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex,  Philip JohnstoneResearch Fellow, SPRU, University of Sussex, January 19, 2024 https://theconversation.com/military-interests-are-pushing-new-nuclear-power-and-the-uk-government-has-finally-admitted-it-216118

The UK government has announced the “biggest expansion of the [nuclear] sector in 70 years”. This follows years of extraordinarily expensive support.

Why is this? Official assessments acknowledge nuclear performs poorly compared to alternatives. With renewables and storage significantly cheaper, climate goals are achieved faster, more affordably and reliably by diverse other means. The only new power station under construction is still not finished, running ten years late and many times over budget.

So again: why does this ailing technology enjoy such intense and persistent generosity?

…………………………………………………………………………….. A document published with the latest announcement, Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050, is also more about affirming official support than substantively justifying it. More significant – in this supposedly “civil” strategy – are multiple statements about addressing “civil and military nuclear ambitions” together to “identify opportunities to align the two across government”.

These pressures are acknowledged by other states with nuclear weapons, but were until now treated like a secret in the UK: civil nuclear energy maintains the skills and supply chains needed for military nuclear programmes.

The military has consistently called for civil nuclear

Official UK energy policy documents fail substantively to justify nuclear power, but on the military side the picture is clear.

For instance, in 2006 then prime minister Tony Blair performed a U-turn to ignore his own white paper and pledge nuclear power would be “back with a vengeance”. Widely criticised for resting on a “secret” process, this followed a major three volume study by the military-linked RAND Corporation for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) effectively warning that the UK “industrial base” for design, manufacture and maintenance of nuclear submarines would become unaffordable if the country phased out civil nuclear power.

A 2007 report by an executive from submarine-makers BAE Systems called for these military costs to be “masked” behind civil programmes. A secret MoD report in 2014 (later released by freedom of information) showed starkly how declining nuclear power erodes military nuclear skills.

In repeated parliamentary hearings, academics, engineering organisations, research centres, industry bodies and trade unions urged continuing civil nuclear as a means to support military capabilities.

In 2017, submarine reactor manufacturer Rolls Royce even issued a dedicated report, marshalling the case for expensive “small modular reactors” to “relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability”.

The government itself has remained coy about acknowledging this pressure to “mask” military costs behind civilian programmes. Yet the logic is clear in repeated emphasis on the supposedly self-evident imperative to “keep the nuclear option open” – as if this were an end in itself, no matter what the cost. Energy ministers are occasionally more candid, with one calling civil-military distinctions “artifical” and quietly saying: “I want to include the MoD more in everything we do”……………………………………………………………………………………..

This is even more evident in actions than words. For instance hundreds of millions of pounds have been prioritised for a nuclear innovation programme and a nuclear sector deal which is “committed to increasing the opportunities for transferability between civil and defense industries”.

An open secret

Despite all this, military pressures for nuclear power are not widely recognised in the UK. On the few occasions when it receives media attention, the link has been officially denied.

Other nuclear-armed states are also striving to maintain expensive military infrastructures (especially around submarine reactors) just when the civilian industry is obsolescing. This is true in the US, France, Russia and China.

Other countries tend to be more open about it, with the interdependence acknowledged at presidential level in the US for instance. French president Emmanuel Macron summarises: “without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear”.

This is largely why nuclear-armed France is pressing the European Union to support nuclear power. This is why non-nuclear-armed Germany has phased out the nuclear technologies it once lead the world in. This is why other nuclear-armed states are so disproportionately fixated by nuclear power.

These military pressures help explain why the UK is in denial about poor nuclear performance, yet so supportive of general nuclear skills. Powerful military interests – with characteristic secrecy and active PR – are driving this persistence.

Neglect of this picture makes it all the more disturbing. Outside defence budgets, off the public books and away from due scrutiny, expensive support is being lavished on a joint civil-military nuclear industrial base largely to help fund military needs. These concealed subsidies make nuclear submarines look affordable, but electricity and climate action more costly.

The conclusions are not self-evident. Some might argue military rationales justify excessive nuclear costs. But history teaches that policies are more likely to go awry if reasons are concealed. In the UK – where nuclear realities have been strongly officially denied – the issues are not just about energy, or climate, but democracy.

The Conversation asked the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to comment but did not receive a reply before the publication deadline.  https://theconversation.com/military-interests-are-pushing-new-nuclear-power-and-the-uk-government-has-finally-admitted-it-216118

January 21, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Weatherwatch: UK push for civil atomic power highlights link with nuclear weapons

Government previously denied evidence countries with nuclear weapons favour atomic power over renewables

Paul Brown, Fri 19 Jan 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/jan/19/weatherwatch-uk-push-civil-atomic-power-highlights-link-nuclear-weapons

There is long running debate about whether nuclear power has a role in combatting the climate crisis. The UK government decided last week it was vital and is planning a vast expansion. Most environmental groups remain sceptical, preferring quicker and cheaper renewables.

Whatever the merits of the case there was, buried deep in the government’s nuclear roadmap, a complete somersault on the relationship between civil and military nuclear power. Back in the 1980s and 1990s when the Guardian carried reports from Sussex University’s Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), among others, showing there was a link between the two, the government continuously denied it.

SPRU persevered with its work and noted that despite the UK’s denials, across the world it has become more obvious that states with nuclear weapons remain keen on atomic power while those without them put renewables centre stage.

Last week the government’s arguments in favour of new civil nuclear power swept aside any lingering doubt its predecessors had been covering up the link. The roadmap policy document mentioned 14 times in different sections the need to continue to strengthen the existing cooperation and tie-ups between the civil and military industries to the benefit of both. The logic is to keep to a minimum the training and development costs for both the weapons and power sectors.

January 21, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why nuclear reactors are not the future of energy despite what UK Government would have you think.

– Dr Richard Dixon. The UK Government is trying to create the impression that it’s all go for nuclear. It isn’t.
The UK’s nuclear enthusiasts have been on another PR offensive, with
announcements of new reactors and possible life extensions to old reactors.


All of it denying the reality that nuclear is much too slow to build and
much too expensive to be part of our future energy strategy. Globally
nuclear is in terminal decline. In the last five years more renewable
electricity has been generated by just new schemes around the world than by
all the world’s nuclear reactors. And twice as much again is expected to
be constructed in the next five years, taking renewables output to five
times that of nuclear.

Of course the motivation for this burst of
co-ordinated PR is clear, the $20bn for Sizewell C hasn’t been raised so
the UK Government is desperately trying to give the impression that it’s
all go for nuclear in the UK. When it clearly isn’t.

 Scotsman 17th Jan 2024

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/why-nuclear-reactors-are-not-the-future-of-energy-despite-what-uk-government-would-have-you-think-dr-richard-dixon-4480376

January 21, 2024 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Roadmap to warfare: new policy exposes links with UK military nuclear projects

The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities are keen to assist University of Sussex academics in exposing the links to the military that were revealed in the recent UK Government’s launch of a ‘Roadmap’ for the civil nuclear sector (11 January 2024).[1]

In the public interest, Andy Stirling, Professor of Science and Technology Policy, and Research Fellow Dr Phil Johnstone, both at the University of Sussex, have done remarkable work over many years highlighting the lack of transparency and the extent of cross-subsidy between the civil and military nuclear sectors, despite facing official hostility, obfuscation, or denial. 

NFLA 18th Jan 2024

Roadmap to warfare: new policy expose links with UK military nuclear projects

January 21, 2024 Posted by | UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley C site fire safety fears trigger enforcement notices


By Phil Hill, @GazettePHill,  https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/24055739.hinkley-c-site-fire-safety-fears-trigger-enforcement-notices/ 17 Jan 24

Pre-planned inspections in November at the Unit 1 HR Building on the site led to ONR identifying the breaches and issuing the notices.

These have been served on licensee NNB Generation Company (HPC) Ltd, contractors Bouygues Travaux Publics SAS and Laing O’Rourke Construction Limited, who are the joint venture partners in BYLOR JV, and REEL UK.

The enforcement notices require improvements to be made to address the shortfalls and prevent re-occurrence.

There were no consequences to employees, the public or the environment as a result of the shortfalls.

However, ONR identified the potential for harm and risk of serious injury, which required regulatory action.

Shane Turner, superintending inspector and head of safety regulation at Hinkley Point C, said: “The enforcement notices require these four organisations to make improvements in fire safety arrangements at the Hinkley Point C site.

We will engage with each of them during the period of the enforcement notice to ensure positive progress is made.”

The notices require necessary improvements are made by March 31.

The enforcement action relates to contraventions under the requirements of Article 22 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

1

January 21, 2024 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »