Nuclear Deterrence At Sea – France Begins Work On ‘Cutting Edge’ Nuke-Powered Ballistic Missile Submarine
By EurAsian Times Desk -March 21, 2024
The steel cutting of the first third-generation French SSBN took place at Naval Group’s shipyard in Cherbourg on March 20th. This symbolic gesture marks the start of hull production for these submarines, which will ensure France’s nuclear deterrence posture until the end of the 21st century.
Among the most complex systems, SSBNs are the cornerstones of France’s strategic oceanic force (FOST) and ensure that nuclear deterrence remains at sea.
Launched in February 2021, the SNLE 3G program for the French Navy brings together the armed forces, the French defense procurement agency (Direction Générale de l’Armement – DGA), which is responsible for overall project management, the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), for the nuclear boilers, and Naval Group, which is responsible for overall project management of the submarines, in association with TechnicAtome for the nuclear boilers………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/nuclear-deterrence-at-sea-france-starts-constructing/
Nuclear weapons: France to restart tritium production with EDF
By Paul Messad | Euractiv France, 20 Mar 24
France’s Minister for the Armed Forces, Sébastien Lecornu, announced on Monday (18 March) a new production cycle for tritium, which is essential for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, using state utility EDF’s two civilian reactors.
Lecornu visited the Civaux nuclear power plant in south-west France, which will produce the tritium for the military.
The tritium will be manufactured on the premises of the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA), the French nuclear scientific and industrial research establishment.
To manufacture tritium, it is necessary to treat lithium-containing material with radiation, by exposing it to the neutron fluxes present inside the core of a reactor.
Tritium, whose gaseous form is practically non-existent, naturally, can be extracted from the irradiated material.
This hydrogen isotope (1 proton, 2 neutrons, and hydrogen-3) is particularly vulnerable to disintegrating spontaneously. As a result, any stockpile is halved in 12 years and disappears almost entirely after a century.
But it is vital for the production of nuclear weapons, particularly hydrogen bombs and neutron bombs, for which it is the main explosive.
The French army and EDF have come up with this “collaboration” to ensure the availability of sufficient stocks of tritium “as part of the continuity and credibility of France’s nuclear deterrent”, according to the annex to the press release.
According to the Federation of American Scientists, France currently has 290 active warheads, the fourth largest, after China with 500, the US with 3,700, and Russia with 4,400…………………………………………………….
Discussions between the French armed forces ministry and EDF on this subject have been underway for more than 25 years, in anticipation of the closure in 2009 of the two reactors intended solely for the production of tritium located in Marcoule, in south-east France, after more than 50 years in operation.
The parties finally selected Civaux, one of France’s most powerful and newest nuclear power stations. It was selected because it was capable of operating for a very long time, Dutheil said……………………
despite the reassurances of the various parties involved, any signed agreement between the French government, CEA, and EDF, will not specify a date – to define the legal and contractual scope of the activities, a press release states.
Dutheil stated, that later this year EDF will submit a dossier to the Autorité de sûreté nucléaire, the French nuclear safety authority, which will examine the feasibility of the project.
As a result of this timetable, the first test irradiation of lithium will not take place until before 2025, when the plant’s reactors are scheduled to be shut down for maintenance.
[Edited by Rajnish Singh] https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/nuclear-weapons-france-to-restart-tritium-production-with-edf/
Ukraine could need dictatorship to survive – Zelensky party MP
https://www.rt.com/russia/594489-ukraine-dictatorship-zelensky-party/ 20 Mar 24
The president is already “making most of the decisions” in the country, Sergey Demchenko has said
Ukraine may need to become a dictatorship in order to prevail in the conflict with Russia, an MP from President Vladimir Zelensky’s party has suggested.
Zelensky has already concentrated a great deal of power in his hands and “makes most of the decisions” on behalf of the government, Sergey Demchenko told Novyny.Live news on Monday. The situation is “reasonable” and does not mean that Ukraine is a dictatorship, though the country may need to become one, he argued.
”That is possible. During war, people sometimes say that the only way for a nation to emerge victorious is a state of dictatorship,” the lawmaker said. “For the country, for the people, dictatorship always plays negatively, but this tool may help beat the enemy.”
At present, Ukraine can be described as a “democratorship,” the host suggested, to which Demchenko replied that the term for the political system is not important.
The MP did not say whether he personally supports this path, but claimed that the Ukrainian people love freedom too much to accept life under a dictator.
Long before open hostilities with Russia erupted in February 2022, Zelensky cracked down on opposition politicians and critical media, claiming to do so in order to fight against Russian influence and domestic oligarchs.
His term in office is technically set to expire in late May, while a new presidential election must be held by the end of March. However, martial law suspends regular democratic procedures, and Zelensky has indicated that he has no intention of changing the constitution to allow a wartime election. The domination of his Servant of the People party in the parliament would likely have allowed the passage of such amendments, Ukrainian political experts have argued.
The parliament is currently debating a radical reform of the mobilization system, which would introduce hefty punishments for draft dodgers. Kiev intends to add up to 500,000 people to the armed forces with the proposed system in place.
Moscow has claimed that Zelensky is refusing to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the conflict, with the goal of protecting his personal power.
Ukraine’s losses ‘in the millions’ – retired Polish general
https://www.sott.net/article/489939-Ukraines-losses-in-the-millions-retired-Polish-general 20 Mar 24
Kiev does not have the resources or manpower to continue the fight against Russia, Rajmund Andrzejczak has said
Ukraine’s losses in the conflict with Russia should be counted “in the millions,” the former chief of the Polish General Staff, Rajmund Andrzejczak, has claimed. Kiev “is losing the war” and does not have the resources to sustain the fight against Moscow, he added.
In an interview with the Polsat broadcaster on Monday, the retired general described Ukraine’s battlefield situation as “very dramatic” and insisted that “there are no miracles in war.”
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s decision to replace his top general, Valery Zaluzhny, with Aleksandr Syrsky has failed to make a significant difference as the same issues remain for Kiev’s new commander-in-chief, Andrzejczak added.
According to the retired general, Ukraine is suffering deficits in equipment and manpower, with losses taking their toll on its capabilities.
“They are missing over 10 million people. I estimate that the losses should be counted in the millions, not hundreds of thousands. There are no resources in this country, there is no one to fight.”
“The Ukrainians are losing this war,” Andrzejczak stated, pointing to media reports suggesting that Kiev is running out of anti-aircraft missiles to protect itself from Russian strikes.
Echoing warnings from several Western leaders in recent weeks, Andrzejczak called for arms production to be boosted and argued that the West should prepare for a full-scale conflict with Russia within two or three years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has insisted that Moscow has no plans or interest in attacking NATO.
Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu stated last month that Ukraine had lost more than 444,000 troops since the start of the conflict in February 2022. The hostilities have also triggered an exodus of Ukrainian refugees, with almost 6.5 million recorded worldwide, according to UN data.
Officials in Kiev have repeatedly complained that Western arms shipments have been inadequate. Those calls have grown louder as US President Joe Biden’s request to provide an additional $60 billion in aid remains stalled in Congress, due to Republican demands to strengthen American border security.
Kiev is also mulling a new mobilization bill that would lower the minimum draft age for men from 27 to 25, with reported plans to send 500,000 new troops to the frontline.
Against this backdrop, the Russian military last month pushed Kiev out of the strategic Donbass city of Avdeevka, also liberating several nearby settlements. The former stronghold has been on the front line since 2014 and was frequently used by Kiev to shell residential blocks in the nearby city of Donetsk.
Bulgarian nuclear experts question economic viability of new nuclear project
By Emiliya Milcheva and Krassen Nikolov | Euractiv.bg 18 Mar 24
Bulgarian nuclear experts are questioning the economic feasibility of the country’s plan to build two US nuclear reactors at the Kozloduy nuclear power plant, raising questions on funding and whether the country has the means to purchase energy from these plants.
“It will be very difficult to find banks to finance the project,” Valentin Kolev, energy expert and a member of the American Association of Energy Engineers told Euractiv. “If we assume that we will produce 15 terawatt-hours per year, in 20 years of operation, it makes 300 terawatt hours. At a price of €17.6 billion for the two reactors, a price of close to €60/MWh would result, but this is only the investment. Fuel costs and much more are not included. The price cannot be below €100-125.”
Energy Minister Rumen Radev said that the electricity from the new Kozloduy NPP reactors will cost €65/MWh.
Bulgaria will build the two nuclear reactors with loans, and only 30% of the construction costs will be financed with money from the state budget, according to an investigation by Euractiv.
At the end of last year, Bulgarian Prime Minister Nikolai Denkov told Euractiv that Greece, Serbia, and North Macedonia were interested in signing long-term contracts for the purchase of electricity from the future seventh and eighth units of the Kozloduy NPP. However, Bulgaria has not been able to attract the three neighbouring countries as investors.
European companies also showed no interest in building the new plant, with the Bulgarian parliament voting to open negotiations with the Korean company Hyundai. The nuclear reactors will be based on the AR-1000 technology of the American company Westinghouse.
Bulgarian Energy Minister Rumen Radev sets the final price for the new reactors at €13 billion, but most experts claim that the price will exceed €17.5 billion.
Kolev recalled the HSBC investment study for the abandoned Belene nuclear power plant project, set to comprise two Russian reactors. This study calculated the cost of electricity at €75/MWh, which led the government to abandon the project as the return on investment would not be high enough.
“For now, it is not clear how the new nuclear plants will be paid for,” Neykov commented.
Another Bulgarian energy expert – Georgi Stefanov – also expressed fears billions of euro might be spent from the state budget, but in the end, nothing would be built.
“The construction of a power plant should be looked at like this: How much money do we need, how much money will we earn, and then how much money will we pay for the disposal when the NPP is closed, and for the maintenance of the nuclear waste?” Stefanov said……………………………….https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/bulgarian-nuclear-experts-question-economic-viability-of-new-nuclear-project/
—
A chance to break the nuclear links – Kate Hudson, CND
,
https://labouroutlook.org/2024/03/17/a-chance-to-break-the-nuclear-links-kate-hudson-cnd/
“It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme.”
By Kate Hudson, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)
Whoever is in the White House after the upcoming presidential election, one thing is clear: Britain has to break its ‘special nuclear relationship’ with the US. We’re all familiar with the so-called ‘special relationship’, basically tying Britain into really bad foreign policy decisions. But not so many people know about the US-UK Mutual Defence
Agreement (MDA) – the world’s most extensive nuclear sharing agreement.
Known in full as the ‘Agreement between the UK and the USA for cooperation in the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes’, the treaty initially established an agreement between both countries to exchange classified information to develop their respective nuclear weapon systems.
At the start, the MDA prohibited the transfer of nuclear weapons, but an amendment in 1959 allowed for the transfer of nuclear materials and equipment between both countries up to a certain deadline.
This amendment is extended through a renewal of the treaty every ten years, most recently in2014 – without any parliamentary debate or vote. The British public and parliamentarians initially found out about that extension and ratification when President Obama informed the United States Congress.
Renewing such agreements on the nod, without transparency or accountability, is never a good thing. When it ties us so tightly to nuclear cooperation with the White House this is an even greater cause for concern. The time has come to really vigorously oppose this Agreement.
It also puts us at odds with our commitments under the NPT: the MDA confirms an indefinite commitment by the US and UK to collaborate on nuclear weapons technology and violates both countries’ obligations as signatories to the NPT. The NPT states that countries should undertake ‘to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to… nuclear disarmament’.
Rather than working together to get rid of their nuclear weapons, the UK and US are collaborating on further advancing their nuclear arsenals. Indeed, a 2004 legal advice paper by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin concluded that it is ‘strongly arguable that the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement is in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’, as it implies ‘continuation and indeed enhancement of thenuclear programme, not progress towards its discontinuation’.
On every level the MDA must be challenged. It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme. When the US seems hell-bent on taking us into war after war, unquestioning allegiance from the UK cannot continue.
The MDA is up for renewal again this year. Now is the time to start asking the questions, raising the protest,and making the case for independence. It’s time for the special nuclear relationship to end. Watch this space!
The spending horrors facing UK’s next PM from old nuclear subs to RAAC in schools
Meg Hillier warned that the next Government will face many spending ‘big nasties’ that will eat up already stretched budgets
The spending horrors facing the next PM from old nuclear subs to RAAC in
schools. Meg Hillier warned that the next Government will face many
spending ‘big nasties’ that will eat up already stretched budgets.
The influential chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has warned of the
“big nasties” of public spending that face the next Government. In an
interview with i, Labour MP Meg Hillier warned that there wasn’t
“nearly enough good project management” in Government to ensure that
the numerous issues she’s identified, from crumbling hospitals to an out
of service a nuclear submarine fleet, are dealt with.
The UK also needs to
consider how it will safely dispose of its fleet of retired nuclear
submarines, a job that is expected to be very costly for the Ministry of
Defence. The current Vanguard class of submarines are due to be phased out
by 2032 and replaced by the Dreadnought class, and it was estimated in 2016
that the renewal of the programme could cost between £167bn and £179bn
over its 30-year life span.
iNews 17th March 2024
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/spending-horrors-facing-next-prime-minister-2960825
Deadlines, costs, production: France’s nuclear company EDF in a moment of truth
By Paul Messad | Euractiv France, Mar 18, 2024
EDF, the French state-owned energy giant faces criticism for rising costs and delays in its nuclear projects, its existing reactors have also been encountering problems. Euractiv looks at the implications of these challenges for EDF and the wider nuclear energy industry.
January 23, 2023: EDF, Europe’s leading energy company, announces a further extension of the costs and construction times of its two 3rd generation pressurized water reactors (EPR) located at Hinkley Point in England. The budget could increase by 70 to 90% compared to initial estimates and the start-up could be four to six years late.
……….the delays are “not likely to undermine the confidence of the British government in its nuclear strategy” , defends SFEN. Proof of this would be its reinvestment of more than a billion pounds sterling in two other reactors built by EDF in England, at Sizewell.
For others, on the contrary, the Anglo-Saxon situation is symptomatic of the challenge faced by the largest nuclear operator in the world, in whose confidence is eroded as projects progress, while it aims, in particular, at the construction of six, then 14 EPRs in France, and one (or even four in total) in the Czech Republic for which the authorities are awaiting guarantees.
Especially since another project tarnishes the image of the French giant. On the continent, EDF is in fact building an EPR in France, in Flamanville (Normandy). But as in England, construction is experiencing significant delays (12 years) and additional costs (+470%). The start-up of the reactor planned for “mid-2024” could even be further delayed .
……………………..In France, the government intends to get started since it plans to build six EPRs — and possibly eight others. Estimated costs and deadlines for the first six: 52 billion euros and a first commissioning in 2035.
For once, according to Les Échos , costs have already been revised upwards… by 30%. When questioned, the CEO of EDF, Luc Rémont, “does not confirm any figures” .
“We will be there when we have made all the optimizations [engineering design, component manufacturing, etc., Editor’s note] ,” he explained on the sidelines of the Franco-Czech nuclear summit organized in Prague. on March 8 and 9.
The deadlines, already “very demanding” , he agreed at the end of November, have since been postponed to 2040.
This back and forth annoys the Minister of the Economy and Energy. “EDF must learn to keep its costs and its schedule ,” criticized Bruno Le Maire at the beginning of March in Le Monde .
Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia…
It must be said that EDF is playing on its international reputation.
In Prague, Mr. Rémont accompanied the President of the Republic, Emmanuel Macron, who came to defend EDF’s candidacy for the construction of one, or even four reactors in total, in the Czech Republic.
However, the country’s authorities have emphasized their commitment to respecting deadlines and costs.
“We are interested in the lowest possible price, the highest possible guarantees that the plant will be built on time ,” Jozef Síkela, Czech Minister of Industry and Trade, told Euractiv .
Clearly, it is not because EDF is the only European company in the running that it will be chosen. Worse, the company is walking on eggshells, competing, as in 2009 on the reactor issue in the United Arab Emirates, by a subsidiary of the South Korean KEPCO.
“Fifteen years later, the Flamanville EPR […] is still not in service. Three of the South Korean reactors in Abu Dhabi are there and the last one very soon [with delay, Editor’s note]” , reminded the former representative of EDF to the European institutions (1987 to 2000) Lionel Taccoen, resumed on
The situation may seem all the more worrying as EDF is also interested in building reactors in the Netherlands, Bulgaria , Slovenia, Slovakia and Poland where the French firm was recently defeated .
In addition, the Czech authorities have left the door open for the American Westinghouse to propose a new offer. The latter has also won several contracts for reactors in Europe in recent years. …………………….
The other dark spot on EDF’s picture lies in the management of its existing fleet and in particular the annus horribilis 2022 where, in the midst of the energy crisis, production has fallen back to pre-1990 levels .
“The year in which France should have shone is exactly the year in which we had a 50% reduction in the fleet,” argued to Euractiv at the end of January Xavier Daval, vice-president of the Renewable Energies Union, the main actors’ union. of the sector in France.
We will now have to wait until 2027, according to EDF , to once again reach production levels slightly higher than those of 1995 (around 360 TWh over the year), far from the 400-420 TWh reached between 2002 and 2015.
As if more was needed, EDF discovered at the beginning of March new “indications” of corrosion , a nightmare of 2022, on one of the reactors in the park.
Nevertheless, the company and the nuclear industry benefit more than ever from government support. France, like the fifteen other European states, which are part of the “nuclear alliance”, supports the emergence of 30 to 45 large reactors by 2050 . Will EDF be the main architect? https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/frances-edf-faces-uphill-battle-as-europes-demand-for-nuclear-reactors-grows/
100,000 years and counting: how do we tell future generations about highly radioactive nuclear waste repositories?
Sweden and Finland have described KBS-3 as a world-first nuclear-waste management solution.
Critical questions remain about the storage method, however. There have been widely publicised concerns in Sweden about the corrosion of test copper canisters after just a few decades. This is worrying, to say the least, because it’s based on a principle of passive safety. The storage sites will be constructed, the canisters filled and sealed, and then everything will be left in the ground without any human monitoring its safe functioning and with no technological option for retrieving it. Yet, over 100,000 years the prospect of human or non-human intrusion into the site – both accidental or intentional – remains a serious threat.
International attention is increasingly fixated on “impactful” short-term responses to environmental problems – usually limited to the lifespan of two or three future generations of human life. Yet the nature of long-lived nuclear waste requires us to imagine and care for a future well beyond that time horizon, and perhaps even beyond the existence of humanity.
International attention is increasingly fixated on “impactful” short-term responses to environmental problems – usually limited to the lifespan of two or three future generations of human life. Yet the nature of long-lived nuclear waste requires us to imagine and care for a future well beyond that time horizon, and perhaps even beyond the existence of humanity.
March 19, 2024 Thomas Keating. Postdoctoral Researcher, Linköping University, Anna Storm, Professor of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University https://theconversation.com/100-000-years-and-counting-how-do-we-tell-future-generations-about-highly-radioactive-nuclear-waste-repositories-199441
In Europe, increasing efforts on climate change mitigation, a sudden focus on energy independence after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and reported breakthroughs in nuclear fusion have sparked renewed interest in the potential of nuclear power. So-called small modular reactors (SMRs) are increasingly under development, and familiar promises about nuclear power’s potential are being revived.
Nuclear power is routinely portrayed by proponents as the source of “limitless” amounts of carbon-free electricity. The rhetorical move from speaking about “renewable energy” to “fossil-free energy” is increasingly evident, and telling.
Yet nuclear energy production requires managing what is known as “spent” nuclear fuel where major problems arise about how best to safeguard these waste materials into the future – especially should nuclear energy production increase. Short-term storage facilities have been in place for decades, but the question of their long-term deposition has caused intense political debates, with a number of projects being delayed or cancelled entirely. In the United States, work on the Yucca Mountain facility has stopped completely leaving the country with 93 nuclear reactors and no long-term storage site for the waste they produce.
Nuclear power plants produce three kinds of radioactive waste:
- Short-lived low- and intermediate-level waste;
- Long-lived low- and intermediate-level waste;
- Long-lived and highly radioactive waste, known as spent nuclear fuel.
The critical challenge for nuclear energy production is the management of long-lived waste, which refers to nuclear materials that take thousands of years to return to a level of radioactivity that is deemed “safe”. According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in spent fuel half of the radiation in strontium-90 and cesium-137 can decay in 30 years, while it would take 24,000 years for plutonium-239 to return to a state considered “harmless”. However, exactly what is meant by “safe” and “harmless” in this context is something that remains poorly defined by international nuclear management organisations, and there is surprisingly little international consensus about the time it takes for radioactive waste to return to a state considered “safe” for organic life.
“Permanent” geological repositories
Despite the seeming revival of nuclear energy production today, very few of the countries that produce nuclear energy have defined a long-term strategy for managing highly radioactive spent fuel into the future. Only Finland and Sweden have confirmed plans for so-called “final” or “permanent” geological repositories.
The Swedish government granted approval for a final repository in the village of Forsmark in January 2022, with plans to construct, fill and seal the facility over the next century. This repository is designed to last 100,000 years, which is how long planners say that it will take to return to a level of radioactivity comparable to uranium found in the earth’s bedrock.
Finland is well underway in the construction of its Onkalo high-level nuclear waste repository, which they began building in 2004 with plans to seal their facility by the end of the 21st century.
The technological method that Finland and Sweden plan to use in their permanent repositories is referred to as KBS-3 storage. In this method, spent nuclear fuel is encased in cast iron, which is then placed inside copper canisters, which are then surrounded by clay and bedrock approximately 500 metres below ground. The same or similar methods are being considered by other countries, such as the United Kingdom.
Sweden and Finland have described KBS-3 as a world-first nuclear-waste management solution. It is the product of decades of scientific research and negotiation with stakeholders, in particular with the communities that will eventually live near the buried waste.
Critical questions remain about the storage method, however. There have been widely publicised concerns in Sweden about the corrosion of test copper canisters after just a few decades. This is worrying, to say the least, because it’s based on a principle of passive safety. The storage sites will be constructed, the canisters filled and sealed, and then everything will be left in the ground without any human monitoring its safe functioning and with no technological option for retrieving it. Yet, over 100,000 years the prospect of human or non-human intrusion into the site – both accidental or intentional – remains a serious threat.
The Key Information File
Another major problem is how to communicate the presence of buried nuclear waste to future generations. If spent fuel remains dangerous for 100,000 years, then clearly this is a time frame where languages can disappear and where the existence of humanity cannot be guaranteed. Transferring information about these sites into the future is a sizeable task that demands expertise and collaboration internationally across the social sciences and sciences into practices of nuclear waste memory transfer – what we refer to as nuclear memory communication.
In a project commissioned by the Swedish Nuclear Waste Management Company (SKB), we take up this precise task by writing the “Key Information File” – a document aimed at non-expert readers containing only the most essential information about Sweden’s nuclear waste repository under development.
The Key Information File has been formulated as a summary document that would help future readers understand the dangers posed by buried waste. Its purpose is to guide the reader to where they can find more detailed information about the repository – acting as a “key” to other archives and forms of nuclear memory communication until the site’s closure at the end of the 21st century. What happens to the Key Information File after this time is undecided, yet communicating the information that it contains to future generations is crucial.
The Key Information File we will publish in 2024 is intended to be securely stored at the entrance to the nuclear waste repository in Sweden, as well as at the National Archives in Stockholm. To ensure its durability and survival through time, the plan is for it to be reproduced in different media formats and translated into multiple languages. The initial version is in English and, when finalised, it will be translated into Swedish and other languages that have yet to be decided.
Our aim is for the file to be updated every 10 years to ensure that essential information is correct and that it remains understandable to a wide audience. We also see the need for the file to be incorporated into other intergenerational practices of knowledge transfer in the future – from its inclusion into educational syllabi in schools, to the use of graphic design and artwork to make the document distinctive and memorable, to the formation of international networks of Key Information File writing and storage in countries where, at the time of writing, decisions have not yet been made about how to store highly radioactive long-lived nuclear waste.
Fragility and short-termism: a great irony
In the process of writing the Key Information File, we have discovered many issues surrounding the efficacy of these strategies for communicating memory of nuclear waste repositories into the future. One is the remarkable fragility of programs and institutions – on more than one occasion in recent years, it has taken just one person to retire from a nuclear organisation for the knowledge of an entire programme of memory communication to be halted or even lost.
And if it is difficult to preserve and communicate crucial information even in the short term, what chance do we have over 100,000 years?
International attention is increasingly fixated on “impactful” short-term responses to environmental problems – usually limited to the lifespan of two or three future generations of human life. Yet the nature of long-lived nuclear waste requires us to imagine and care for a future well beyond that time horizon, and perhaps even beyond the existence of humanity.
Responding to these challenges, even partially, requires governments and research funders internationally to provide the capacity for long-term intergenerational research on these and related issues. It also demands care in developing succession plans for retiring experts to ensure their institutional knowledge and expertise is not lost. In Sweden, this could also mean committing long-term funding from the Swedish nuclear waste fund so that not only future technical problems with the waste deposition are tackled, but also future societal problems of memory and information transfer can be addressed by people with appropriate capacity and expertise.
Exposing myths about building French nuclear power
How French nuclear construction times and costs have been getting longer and longer – for a long time
DAVID TOKE, MAR 16, 2024, https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/exposing-myths-about-building-french
It has been standard in the UK to talk about the wonders of the French nuclear programme and how if only we copied them nuclear power would get cheaper and cheaper. The story has gone ‘If only we built a series of nuclear power plant like they did’. But it turns out that the idea that the French nuclear programme was ever getting any cheaper was a myth.
In the UK Government policy documents would use their own language to describe nuclear prospects. Special terms are used that are not usually used to discuss other energy developments. These include the acronym ‘FOAK’ which stands for ‘First of a Kind’. In other words the first plant will be relatively more expensive than the plants of the same model that followed them. Another term used of course is ‘overnight’ costs – that is a wonderful piece of euphemism given that nuclear power plants are anything but built overnight. Its use obscures the fact that very large interest costs mount up during the time that the plant is being constructed, costs which are not included in the total cost estimates. That is because the plant in the spreadsheet is being built overnight (?!).
But when we examine the actual ‘overnight’ costs of French nuclear power, as reported, they have always been increasing. Look at the analysis by Arnulf Grubler published in the journal Energy Policy in 2010: [graph on original]
Grubler’s analysis did not include the length of time taken to construct the latest French nuclear power plant at Flamanville. This is an EPR (the same design as is being built at Hinkley C and planned for Sizewell C. Construction of the Flamanville EPR began in 2007 but it has still not been completed. Hence the Figure below includes the time taken to build Flamanville up until now, with the proviso that the plant still has not been completed.
It should be understood that, broadly speaking, the cost of building reactors is proportionate to the amount of construction time. So the cost has gone up, and in recent years cost has been going up at a rapid rate,.
In my forthcoming book ‘Energy Revolutions – Profiteering versus Democracy’ I outliner four reasons for the increasing difficulties of building nuclear power plants:
‘First is the fact that nuclear power plant designers have incorporated safety features designed to minimise the consequences of nuclear accidents, but in doing so the plants have become much more complicated and difficult to build without great expense.
A second reason is that large construction projects of whatever type, at least in the West, tend to greatly overrun their budgets. In the West, improvements in health and safety regulations to protect construction workers have no doubt played a part in this.
A third factor is that, in the West at least, the cheap industrialised labour force that dominated the industrial economies of the past and which could be used to develop nuclear programmes (in the way that France did in the 1980s) has ceased to exist.
A fourth factor is simply that renewable energy technologies, especially wind and solar power, can be largely manufactured offsite in a modular fashion and their costs have rapidly fallen, leaving nuclear power increasingly uncompetitive.’ (page 30)
This book shows how we can move forward to an energy system powered by renewable energy rather than nuclear power or ‘carbon capture’ fossil fuels. It reveals how selective public ownership and targeted interventions, as part of an energy democracy programme will protect consumer interests better than the chaotic energy supply system that failed consumers so expensively in the recent energy crisis. We want no more of that!
Essentially, the idea of using nuclear power as a significant measure to engineer the global energy transition is at best a tremendous waste of resources. It is not just France that is seeing its nuclear power programme stall. It is a global phenomenon. Renewable energy is, by contrast, expanding at ever-incredible rates. As can be seen from the following graphs which is taken from my book ‘Energy Revolutions’. [on original]
Failed ICJ Case Against Russia Backfires, Paves Way for Genocide Charges Against Ukraine
MintPress News KIT KLARENBERG 13 Mar 2
As January became February, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a pair of legal body blows to Ukraine and its Western backers. First, on January 31, it ruled on a case brought by Kiev against Russia in 2017, which accused Moscow of presiding over a campaign of “terrorism” in Donbas, including the July 2014 downing of MH17. It also charged that Russia racially discriminated against Ukrainian and Tatar residents of Crimea following its reunification with Moscow.
The ICJ summarily rejected most charges. Then, on February 2, the Court made a preliminary judgment in a case where Kiev accused Moscow of exploiting false claims of an ongoing genocide of Russians and Russian speakers in Donbas to justify its invasion. Ukraine further charged the Special Military Operation breached the Genocide Convention despite not itself constituting genocide. Almost unanimously, ICJ judges rejected these arguments.
Western media universally ignored or distorted the substance of the ICJ rulings. When outlets did acknowledge the judgments, they misrepresented the first by focusing prominently on the accepted charges while downplaying all dismissed allegations. The second was wildly spun as a significant loss for Moscow. The BBC and others focused on how the Court agreed that “part” of Ukraine’s case could proceed. That this “part” is the question of whether Kiev itself committed genocide in Donbas post-2014 was unmentioned.
Ukraine’s failed lawfare effort was backed by 47 EU and NATO member states, leading to the farce of 32 separate international legal teams submitting representations to The Hague in September 2023. Among other things, they supported Kiev’s bizarre contention that the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics were comparable to Al-Qaeda. Judges comprehensively rejected that assertion. Markedly, in its submitted arguments, Russia drew attention to how the same countries backing Kiev justified their illegal, unilateral destruction of Yugoslavia under the “responsibility to protect” doctrine.
This may not be the only area where Ukraine and its overseas sponsors are in trouble moving forward. A closer inspection of the Court’s rulings comprehensively discredits the established mainstream narrative of what transpired in Crimea and Donbas following the Western-orchestrated Maidan coup in February 2014.
In sum, the judgments raise serious questions about Kiev’s eight-year-long “anti-terrorist operation” against “pro-Russian separatists,” following months of vast protests and violent clashes throughout eastern Ukraine between Russian-speaking pro-federal activists and authorities.
DAMNING FINDING AFTER DAMNING FINDING
In its first judgment, the ICJ ruled the Donbas and Lugansk People’s Republics were not “terrorist” entities, as “[neither] group has previously been characterized as being terrorist in nature by an organ of the United Nations” and could not be branded such simply because Kiev labeled them so. This gravely undermined Ukraine’s allegations of Russia “funding…terrorist groups” in Donbas, let alone committing “terrorist” acts there itself.
Other revelatory findings reinforced this bombshell. The ICJ held that Moscow wasn’t liable for committing or even failing to prevent terrorism, as the Kremlin had no “reasonable grounds to suspect” material provided by Ukraine, including details of “accounts, bank cards and other financial instruments” allegedly used by accused “terrorists” in Donbas, were used for such purposes. Moscow was also ruled to have launched investigations into “alleged offenders” but concluded they “d[id] not exist… or their location could not be identified”.
DAMNING FINDING AFTER DAMNING FINDING
In its first judgment, the ICJ ruled the Donbas and Lugansk People’s Republics were not “terrorist” entities, as “[neither] group has previously been characterized as being terrorist in nature by an organ of the United Nations” and could not be branded such simply because Kiev labeled them so. This gravely undermined Ukraine’s allegations of Russia “funding…terrorist groups” in Donbas, let alone committing “terrorist” acts there itself.
Other revelatory findings reinforced this bombshell…………………………………………………………………………………..
KIEV GOES IN FOR THE KILL
The ICJ has now effectively confirmed that the entire mainstream narrative of what happened in Crimea and Donbas over the previous decade was fraudulent. Some legal scholars have argued Ukraine’s acquittal on charges of genocide to be inevitable. Yet, many statements made by Ukrainian nationalists since Maidan unambiguously indicate such an intent.
Moreover, in June 2020, a British immigration court granted asylum to Ukrainian citizens who fled the country to avoid conscription. They successfully argued that military service in Donbas would necessarily entail perpetrating and being implicated in “acts contrary to the basic rules of human conduct” – in other words, war crimes – against the civilian population.
The Court’s ruling noted the Ukrainian military routinely engaged in “unlawful capture and detention of civilians with no legal or military justification…motivated by the need for ‘currency’ for prisoner exchanges.” It added there was “systemic mistreatment” of detainees during the “anti-terrorist operation” in Donbas. This included “torture and other conduct that is cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.” An “attitude and atmosphere of impunity for those involved in mistreating detainees” was observed.
The judgment also recorded “widespread civilian loss of life and the extensive destruction of residential property” in Donbas, “attributable to poorly targeted and disproportionate attacks carried out by the Ukrainian military.” Water installations, it recorded, “have been a particular and repeated target by Ukrainian armed forces, despite civilian maintenance and transport vehicles being clearly marked…and despite the protected status such installations enjoy” under international law.
All of this could quite reasonably be argued to constitute genocide. Regardless, the British asylum judgment amply underlines who Ukraine was truly fighting all along – its own citizens. Moscow could furthermore reasonably cite recent disclosures from Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande that the 2014-15 Minsk Accords were, in fact, a con, never intended to be implemented, buying Kiev time to bolster its stockpiles of Western weapons, vehicles, and ammunition, as yet further proof of Ukraine’s malign intentions in Donbas………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..more https://www.mintpressnews.com/failed-icj-case-against-russia-backfires-paves-way-for-genocide-charges-against-ukraine/287028/
La Hague reprocessing plant: expansion and continued operation until at least 2100
Last week, the Élysée Palace confirmed that the French reprocessing
plant at La Hague is to be expanded. Extensive investments are planned in
this context. There have already been plans since 2020 to build another
storage pool on the plant site.
At La Hague, there is still radioactive
waste from Germany, which may be returned this year. It was actually just a
side note: The Conseil de Politique Nucléaire (Nuclear Policy Council),
which was founded in 2023 and met at the Elysée Palace last Monday,
confirmed the prospect of major investments at La Hague in order to extend
the lifespan of the facilities until at least 2100.
Corresponding press
reports were confirmed by the Elysée Palace on Tuesday: The Council had
“confirmed the major guidelines of French policy on the nuclear fuel cycle,
which combines reprocessing, reuse of spent fuel and closing the cycle”,
the La Hague site would “be the subject of major investment”. No specific
timetables or amounts were mentioned in this context.
GRS 12th March 2024
And Israel? Macron to propose ‘Olympic ceasefire’ for Ukraine conflict
17 Mar 2024 , https://www.sott.net/article/489864-And-Israel-Macron-to-propose-Olympic-ceasefire-for-Ukraine-conflict
French President Emmanuel Macron has said he will propose a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine during the Summer Olympic Games, set to take place in Paris between July 26 and August 11.
In an interview with Ukrainian media on Saturday, Macron was asked whether France, as the host of the games this year, will follow tradition and seek “a ceasefire during the Olympics.” The journalist was apparently referring to the Olympic Truce, a period of conflict cessation which historically began seven days before the games and ended seven days after so that the athletes could safely travel to and from the Olympics.
“It will be requested,” the French leader responded.
“The rule of the host country is to move in step with the Olympic movement,” the French leader said when asked about his views on the situation in which Russian athletes are allowed to participate under a neutral flag.
“This is a message of peace. We will also follow the decision of the Olympic Committee,” he added.
Comment: Will Israeli athletes also be forced to attend under a neutral flag or be banned altogether by the IOC?
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) originally banned Russian and Belarusian athletes from competing internationally, following the escalation of the military conflict in Ukraine in February 2022. Last year, however, the blanket ban was reconsidered by the organization, and conditions were set to allow individuals, but not the teams, to participate provided that they do so under a neutral flag.
The decision prompted an outcry from Kiev, with President Vladimir Zelensky calling for a complete boycott of the games. However, Ukraine later softened its stance and permitted its athletes to compete as long as the Russians and Belarusians were only present as neutral athletes.
While Moscow condemned the IOC’s requirements, calling them “unreasonable, legally void and excessive”, the head of the Russian Olympic Committee, Stanislav Pozdnyakov, confirmed on Thursday that this year’s Olympics in Paris would not be shunned, despite the restriction.
“We will never take the path of boycotting (the Games). We will always support our athletes,” he told RIA Novosti.
Comment: The French president would likely want to buy some time so that the Western partners have more time to rearm Ukraine and train yet another army. That wish for a ceasefire is unlikely to be granted by Russia.
One wonders why the French president wasn’t asked about a ceasefire in Israel.
Macron has in the recent weeks done made sure to get some time in the limelight, but it hasn’t quite worked out and he might have shown himself to be delusional if not also untrustworthy. See also:
Macron leads the way to Western civilization’s suicideMajority disagree with Macron’s comments on sending NATO troops to Ukraine – poll
EU to use Russian assets to buy arms for Ukraine – Scholz
The German chancellor has clarified that profits obtained from Moscow’s funds held in the EU will be used to arm Kiev
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has said that interest accrued from Russian assets frozen in the EU will be used to purchase weapons for Ukraine.
Soon after Russia launched its military operation against Ukraine in February 2022, Western countries froze approximately $300 billion of funds belonging to the Russian Central Bank. Of that sum, the Brussels-based clearinghouse Euroclear holds around €191 billion ($205 billion), which has accrued nearly €4.4 billion in interest over the past year.
Speaking at a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Berlin on Friday, Chancellor Scholz said: “We will use windfall profits from Russian assets frozen in Europe to financially support the purchase of weapons for Ukraine.
The German leader also announced plans to establish a “new capability coalition for long-range rocket artillery,” with procurement to take place “on the overall world market.”
The German chancellor did not provide specifics, and it remains unclear whether he was referring to an entirely new initiative, or to a “long-range” scheme announced by President Macron in February.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last month suggested using the interest from frozen Russian assets to buy weapons for Ukraine. However, Politico, citing an anonymous EU official, reported on Thursday that Malta, Luxembourg and Hungary had “expressed reservations” about the plan earlier this week.
Moscow has repeatedly warned that any actions taken against its assets would amount to “theft.” It has stressed that seizing the funds or any similar move would violate international law and undermine Western currencies, the global financial system, and the world economy.
UK government plans to block foreign control of newspapers – what about foreign control of Sizewell nuclear project ?
Telegraph ruling raises questions over Sizewell funding
The government plans to block foreign control of newspapers – what about physical infrastructure?
Questions are being raised about the government’s willingness to allow essential physical infrastructure to fall into the hands of foreign states but not newspapers.
Government minister Lord Parkinson told the House of Lords yesterday: “We will amend the media merger regime explicitly to rule out newspaper and periodical news magazine mergers involving ownership, influence or control by foreign states.”
Legislation is being introduced specifically to prevent The Telegraph newspaper group from being bought by RedBird IMI, a fund backed by the United Arab Emirates.
It is not yet clear, however, how far the new law could stretch. The intention is that it applies only to newspapers and news magazines. But are they really more important than water companies, electricity companies and power stations?
The Chinese state was allowed to have an influence in the development of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station but has been blocked from further involvement in the UK nuclear programme amid security concerns.
However, the UK government has been wooing the UAE to step in to help fund Sizewell C in place of China.
Campaigners against Sizewell C see the Telegraph intervention as grounds to block UAE investment in British nuclear power, on the basis that nuclear power stations must be at least as important to national security as newspapers.
“If the government is prepared to ban foreign state ownership of newspapers because of the UAE’s bid for the Telegraph, ministers must now block UAE investment in Sizewell C in the interests of national security. That deal should also be dead in the water: there is no place in our critical national infrastructure for a regime that does not share our views and values,” said a spokesperson for Stop Sizewell C.
There already exists legislation that could be used to prevent a foreign state having influence in critical infrastructure – the National Security & Investment Act 2021 and the National Security Act 2023 have sought to respond to foreign state interference.
Lord Parkinson told parliament yesterday: “We intend to expand on the current definition of ‘foreign powers’ used in the National Security Act 2023 to ensure a broad definition that also covers officers of foreign governments acting in a private capacity and investing their private wealth.”
That could put the skids under a whole host of utility companies.
However, rather blurring the message, the minister concluded: “I should note that the government remain committed to encouraging and supporting investment into the United Kingdom and recognise that investors deploying capital into this country rely on the predictability and consistency of our regulatory regime. The UK remains one of the most open economies in the world, which is key for the prosperity and future growth of our nation. Our focus here is not on foreign investment in the UK media sector in general; this new regime is targeted and will apply only to foreign states, foreign state bodies and connected individuals, and only to newspapers and news magazines.”
1 This Month
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
