What makes all of this vastly worse is that the cost to Ukrainians in their lives is staggeringly high. Consider just this one harrowing data point: more Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in the first 18 months of this war than the number of American soldiers killed during the decade-plus war in Vietnam.
There is no question that the war in Ukraine has radically changed. Even Western media outlets that have been steadfastly cheerleading for this war – and, indeed, even Ukrainians themselves – are now admitting what battlefield realities dispositively prove. The much-vaunted Ukrainian counter-offensive – the imminent dramatic event we were assured for months would be transformative in finally giving Ukraine the upper hand and dislodging entrenched Russian positions inside Ukraine: a claim that doubled as a propaganda tool to assuage a growingly restless Western population about their endless support for this war – is now, no matter how you slice it, a failure.
After months of multi-pronged attacks, Ukraine’s gains are so minimal and trivial as to be barely worth noting. Russia continues to occupy a very significant chunk of both Eastern and southern Ukraine, along with Crimea which they have held since 2014. Even Western intelligence reports acknowledge that the Russians’ defensive positions are more fortified and entrenched than any seen in decades. The U.S. has already depleted its own stockpiles of artillery and other vital weapons and simply does not have to give Ukraine what they need to have any hope of changing this situation in anything resembling the near- or the short-term future.
What makes all of this vastly worse is that the cost to Ukrainians in their lives is staggeringly high. Consider just this one harrowing data point: more Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in the first 18 months of this war than the number of American soldiers killed during the decade-plus war in Vietnam. The Ukrainian men who were eager to fight and who volunteered to do so have long ago been used up – killed, maimed, or exhausted. Zelensky’s only option for continuing combat is to increase domestic repression, impose greater and greater punishment for desertion, and use harsher and harsher means to force those unwilling to fight to do so against their will. In so many ways, this conflict resembles some of the worst horrors of World War I, including the need to put unwilling men who do not want to fight the deeply grim choice of either offering themselves up as cannon fodder or facing unimaginably harsh punishments by a government completely unconstrained by basic considerations of human rights or legal process, operating under full-scale martial law.
At this point, debates over who is to blame for this war barely matter. All that does matter is the question of how this will end, and who will end it. It is simply becoming unsustainable – politically, economically, and morally – to justify having Western nations pour their resources into fueling and continuing this war that Ukraine has less and less chance of winning. At the start of the war, many who claim that the real goal of the US was not to save Ukraine and Ukrainians but rather to destroy them – at the altar of their geostrategic goal of weakening Russia – were accused of being callous and conspiratorial. Now, there is little reasonable space to contest that they were right all along.
Joe Biden just asked for another $25 billion to keep this war going – as he offered $700 checks per household to the victims of the Maui fire and as profits for the European arms industry reach such record heights that they do not even bother to conceal their glee. Even if you were someone who supported the US role in Ukraine back in February of 2022 with the best of intentions – namely, you wanted to help a country seeing to avoid Russian domination – the failed nature of this mission has to compel a re-evaluation of perspective and policy. The last thing this war is doing is protecting Ukraine and Ukrainians. It is destroying both of those while imposing suffering among everyone in the U.S. and Western countries other than a tiny sliver of arms dealers and intelligence agencies. In other words, the war in Ukraine is following exactly the same pattern as every other U.S. war fought over the last 50 years.
The story that still dominates now – even as temperatures (and fires) roar out of control in the Atlantic, in Canada, in Hawaii, in Rhodes – is one that government, citizens, and even scientists have created together: a story where there’s always “just enough time” to fix things.
We’ve been on a “last warning” to avert climate disaster for 20 years – but in reality, time is up. Anonymous polls show that climate scientists overwhelmingly now privately expect warming to exceed 1.5C, our scientifically and politically agreed “safe” limit.
The question now is not whether – but how much – chaos will be left to future generations. We should not be so naive as to think that climate isn’t an urgent problem for us, here – that we in the UK might somehow be exempt by way of geography.
Certainly the global South will experience worse impacts: but, just as “developed” societies like Britain and the USA proved surprisingly fragile in the face of Covid-19, so it may prove with climate. Societies like ours that heavily depend on long supply chains can expect to feel heavily the coming disruptions in world food production, for example.
Nor can there be any assumption that Scotland, by virtue of being further north, is safer than the rest of Britain. Populations in cooler latitudes might get off more lightly; but equally they may not. Huge levels of ice-melt in the Arctic are causing unprecedented amounts of cold fresh water to pour into the north Atlantic, threatening the Gulf Stream, and the lesser-known, but even more important ‘Atlantic Meridian Overturning Circulation’.
It is quite possible that the effects will be felt soon – well within a generation – making Britain’s climate colder (and drier). If this occurs – and if I were a betting man, I’d bet on it – then it will be very bad indeed for agriculture. And especially bad for Scotland.
The time has passed for protecting the public from reality. Indeed, millions already know that things are worse than governments admit: from 40C heatwaves to droughts and flooded high streets, every year the weather brings the vicious reality of climate breakdown home in a new way. In workplaces, communities and wherever people have power they are taking climate action into their own hands – from towns working towards net zero, to figures in law, business and finance, lobbying for ambitious climate policy. It is vital to acknowledge and encourage this process. Scotland as a nation has already grasped this need and must urgently spread the word among its cities, towns and villages. We must all now recognise ourselves as the climate majority: the citizen energy that will demand unprecedented action to protect our world.
Washington Post, Analysis by Jonathan Tirone | Bloomberg, August 27, 2023
1The US and its European allies moved fast to choke exports of Russian oil, natural gas and coal after Vladimir Putin ordered troops into Ukraine. When it comes to atomic energy, however, Kremlin-controlled Rosatom Corp. continues to be the dominant source of fuel for the world’s nuclear power stations — supplying about half of global demand for enriched uranium. Western nations are racing to reconstitute their own processing capacity, much of which withered amid a growing aversion to nuclear power following Japan’s Fukushima meltdowns. But progress is likely to be slow.
………………………………………………………. Why is Russia so dominant?
Unlike Western companies in the nuclear business, Rosatom is involved in every part of the supply chain, from ore extraction to fuel enrichment and delivery. The company is as much an expression of the Kremlin’s geopolitical power as a profit-generating business. That state-level commitment has played to Russia’s advantage. When international investors turned away from nuclear power following the Fukushima accident in 2011, some Western companies involved in the fuel cycle, including Areva SA in France, the US Enrichment Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co., went bankrupt.
Russia stepped in, building market share not only among the world’s existing fleet of nuclear reactors, but by offering generous financing for new foreign projects. Today, Rosatom’s 330,000 workers provide fuel assemblies to scores of old reactors in eastern Europe and Russia, and is building 33 new power units in 10 countries, including China and India, that will be locked into fuel contracts for decades ahead.
3. Which countries are most dependent?
Former Soviet satellites in eastern Europe continue operating dozens of so-called VVER pressurized water reactors built during the Cold War era. Most of those aging units use Rosatom fuel and are already running on borrowed time, generating electricity beyond the initial period that regulators licensed them to operate. That means there’s little incentive for new companies to enter that market and compete against Russian supply. There are some exceptions. Westinghouse, after emerging from insolvency in 2018, signed contracts to fuel some of Ukraine’s VVER reactors. But even there, Ukraine continues to rely on Rosatom inventory and won’t be able to fully diversify away from Russia until later this decade. It’s a similar challenge from Bulgaria to the Czech Republic and Finland, where the search for alternative suppliers is expected to take years. In all, Russia covers about 30% of the European Union’s demand for enriched uranium.
4. How much is the US exposed?
Atomic trade between the countries grew in the aftermath of the Cold War under the so-called Megatons to Megawatts program, which converted 500 tons of Russian weapons-grade uranium into fuel suitable for US reactors. Russia continues to be a major provider of uranium mining, milling, conversion and enrichment services for US utilities, exposing US consumers to potential disruption. In 2022 it supplied about a quarter of the enriched uranium purchased by US nuclear power reactors, according to US government figures.
Washington will not give Kiev a second shot at its counteroffensive, the newspaper’s sources have said
The US is unlikely to give Ukraine “anywhere near the same level” of military aid in 2024 compared to this year, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing officials in Washington. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden and his administration insist that they will continue to back Kiev to the hilt.
The US has supplied more than $43 billion worth of arms to Ukraine since Russia’s military operation began last year, while leaked Pentagon documents indicate that NATO countries trained and equipped nine Ukrainian brigades to take part in the ongoing counteroffensive against Russian forces.
With the Ukrainian military failing to penetrate Russia’s defensive lines after nearly three months of fighting, American military planners are advising their Ukrainian counterparts to stick to their NATO training and use what they’ve been given more effectively, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
“The American advice is based on the calculation that the surge of equipment the US has funneled to Ukraine…is enough for this offensive and is unlikely to be repeated at anywhere near the same level in 2024,” the newspaper explained.
Washington’s continued bankrolling of the Ukrainian military is a matter of political contention in the US. While almost all Democratic members of Congress back Biden’s policy of arming Kiev “for as long as it takes,” a group of more than two dozen Republicans are vehemently opposed. Moreover, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has promised to force Kiev into a peace deal if elected president next November, as has Vivek Ramaswamy, who is currently polling third for the GOP’s nomination.
The Biden administration has spent all of its money set aside for Ukraine, and the president is now pushing Congress to pass a $40 billion emergency spending bill, half of which would be allocated to Ukraine. With Republican anti-interventionists up in arms, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has suggested that he won’t give the bill his unconditional support.
“You don’t get to just throw money [away],” he said earlier this summer. “What about the money we have already spent? What is the money for and what is victory?”
Biden’s top officials have downplayed the growing divisions in Washington. “We believe that the support will be there and will be sustained,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told reporters on Tuesday. Sullivan added that despite the “dissonant voices” on the right, Republicans in “key leadership positions” will ensure that weapons keep flowing to Kiev.
According to a report by Axios on Wednesday, “senior US officials” have been in contact with European leaders to reassure them that the supply of military aid will not dry up.
Campaigners say tonnes of fish could be sucked into Hinkley Point C’s cooling system if an acoustic fish deterrent is not installed. The Environment Agency (EA) has removed a requirement for EDF to install the deterrent, which the company said could be dangerous to maintain.
Environmental groups say millions of fish could be killed per year. The EA said it was confined to looking at water discharge activity, which did not deal with the entrapment of fish. A final decision on whether EDF will have to install an acoustic fish deterrent (AFD) will made by the Secretary of State for Environment later this year.
The reactor cooling system tunnels will take in 132,000 litres of water per second from the Severn Estuary to cool the plant’s two nuclear reactors. An AFD would use underwater sound to cause hearing species of fish to swim away.
Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that the Ukrainian campaign is showing “signs of stalling.” The newspaper warned that “the inability to demonstrate decisive success on the battlefield [by Kiev’s forces] is stoking fears that the conflict is becoming a stalemate and international support could erode.”
President Vladimir Zelensky should recall how World War II ended for Japan, the former US intelligence officer says
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine will conclude with Kiev’s unconditional surrender, according to Scott Ritter, a former US intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector.
On Wednesday, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky claimed in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that “Ukraine does not trade its territories, because we do not trade our people.”
The message was dedicated to the Third Crimea Platform Summit, where Ukraine discussed ways of “de-occupying” the peninsula, which reunited with Russia in 2014 following a referendum triggered by the US-backed Maidan coup in Kiev earlier that year.
Replying to Zelensky’s post, Ritter wrote that “it was NATO that suggested a trade. Russia isn’t trading anything.”
The former US intelligence officer was apparently referring to remarks by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s chief of staff, Stian Jenssen, who said in mid-August that Ukraine could “give up territory [to Russia], and get NATO membership in return.” According to Jenssen, this idea was actively being discussed within the US-led military bloc.
Jenssen later apologized for his remarks, saying they were “a mistake.”
The suggestion caused outrage in Kiev, with presidential aide Mikhail Podoliak branding it “ridiculous.” Such a move would amount to “deliberately choosing the defeat of democracy… and passing the war on to other generations,” he claimed.
The head of the Ukrainian National Security Council, Aleksey Danilov, reiterated that Kiev would never negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that “Russia must be destroyed like a modern-day Carthage.”
Ritter insisted that Moscow is “dealing with reality” when it comes to the conflict with Kiev, including “where Russian boots will be when Ukraine capitulates unconditionally.”
“Think Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945. That’s your future. Enjoy,” he wrote, addressing Zelensky.
On that date, representatives of the Japanese Empire signed an unconditional surrender to the Allies aboard the USS Missouri, ending the country’s participation in World War II.
In line with the deal, Japan agreed to the loss of all its territories outside of its home islands, complete disarmament, Allied occupation of the country, and tribunals to bring war criminals to justice.
On Wednesday, Zelensky admitted that the Ukrainian counteroffensive against Russian forces, which began in early June, was proving “very difficult.” However, he also claimed that the operation was moving “slowly, but in the right direction.”
Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that the Ukrainian campaign is showing “signs of stalling.” The newspaper warned that “the inability to demonstrate decisive success on the battlefield [by Kiev’s forces] is stoking fears that the conflict is becoming a stalemate and international support could erode.”
President Putin claimed on Wednesday that it was “astonishing” to see how little the authorities in Kiev cared about Ukrainian soldiers. “They are throwing [them] on our minefields, under our artillery fire, acting as if they are not their own citizens at all,” the Russian leader said.
According to Moscow’s estimates, Ukraine has failed to make any significant gains since the launch of its counteroffensive, but has lost more than 43,000 troops and nearly 5,000 pieces of heavy equipment. Kiev has so far claimed the capture of several villages, but these appear to be some distance from Russia’s main defensive lines.
Washington is reportedly “frustrated” with Kiev’s reluctance to follow its advice in the conflict with Russia
American officials are “frustrated” with Ukraine’s reluctance to accept their advice on how to conduct the counteroffensive against Russian forces, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
The newspaper claimed it was still “not too late” for Kiev to follow instructions from Washington, and to utilize the training that tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops have received from NATO nations. The outlet noted, however, that the two sides are still “at odds about how to turn the tables on the Russians”before winter sets in.
According to the WSJ’s sources, the US believes that the amount of Western military aid sent to Ukraine is enough to breach Russian defenses, although the window of opportunity is closing.
“We built up this mountain of steel for the counteroffensive. We can’t do that again,” one former US official explained. “It doesn’t exist.”
The Ukrainian military leadership has attempted to deflect criticism by claiming that the Americans do not understand the kind of warfare that Kiev is engaged in, the WSJ added.
“This is not counterinsurgency. This is Kursk,” General Valery Zaluzhny, Kiev’s top military commander, told his US interlocutors, according to an unnamed American official.
Zaluzhny was referring to a key World War II battle on the eastern front, in which defending Soviet troops stopped Nazi forces before turning the tables on them.
Figures in Washington want Zaluzhny to concentrate Ukrainian forces near the southern city of Tokmak for a push towards the Azov Sea, the article claimed. It added that US officials disapprove of President Vladimir Zelensky’s focus on attempts to retake the city of Artyomovsk in the east, which Kiev calls Bakhmut.
The Ukrainian leader, who has invested symbolic significance in the settlement, reportedly argued that recapturing it would boost troop morale. US officials have long said Artyomovsk has no strategic value, urging a withdrawal before Ukrainian troops were ousted from it in late May. The WSJ said Kiev had made adjustments in recent weeks by taking a defensive posture in the east.
Russia has argued that the US is using the Ukrainian people as cannon fodder in a proxy war against Moscow. The Russian military has claimed that Ukrainian troop losses during the first two months of its summer counteroffensive were more than 43,000.
The vehicles’ Stryker-type armor may not be suitable in a combat environment, the outlet’s report suggests
A Ukrainian brigade, which Forbes magazine had described as Kiev’s “most powerful unit” at the front lines, has lost 10% of its valuable mine-clearing vehicles just a week since joining the push against Russian defense lines, the outlet has reported.
The 2,000-soldier 82nd Air Assault Brigade, which is armed with four British-made Challenger 2 tanks, 40 German-made tracked Marder infantry fighting vehicles and 90 wheeled Stryker infantry fighting vehicles, had been kept in reserve until last week. It has since “written off” at least two of its 20 or so M1132 Engineer Squad Vehicles, Forbes reported on Tuesday.
The M1132 is a variant of the Stryker vehicle, which is equipped with mine rollers and is meant to clear a path through a minefield for advancing forces. The loss was hardly surprising, the report suggested, considering the role of the armor and its relatively weak protection.
Normally, minefield-breaching vehicles have the chassis of a tank. The M1132, though better suited for transportation by air, is vulnerable to enemy fire and should ideally be used in surprise assaults where there is little resistance, Forbes writer David Axe explained.
The report is based on images of the destroyed vehicles circulating online. The publication noted that it was unclear how exactly they were neutralized or whether their crews had survived. The “good news,” Axe noted, is that the US Army “has hundreds more Strykers in storage” and can supply more to Ukraine.
The 82nd was deployed to the front line in the contested Zaporozhye Region and is involved in Ukraine’s push towards the village of Rabotino, which lately has seen some intensive fighting.
Kiev has rebuked media coverage of the maneuver. Deputy Defense Minister Anna Malyar declared on Monday that “the price of the headlines” of such published articles was “five airstrikes a day” targeting the brigade. She also threatened criminal prosecution for disclosing information about movements of Ukrainian troops.
Evgeny Balitsky, the Russian official who is serving as acting head of the region, reported on Tuesday that, in ten days, Kiev had lost some 1,500 troops and “countless military vehicles” in the area.
As a crowning irony, the Nuclear Alliance is led by France, whose own national law … excludes atomic energy from being classified as a green investment.
In March 2021, seven nuclear member states sent a letter to the European Commission demanding the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy. When a team of independent journalists took the letter’s statements apart it found that of the 25 factual claims in the letter, 20 were either fictitious or misleading
The European Commission, under the presidency of Ursula von der Leyen, has officially declared climate policy as its number one priority.
But the end of August, in the European General Court in Luxembourg, marks the conclusion of the first phase of one of three lawsuits against the European Commission targeting a key piece of European Green Deal legislation.
These lawsuits were brought not by opponents of climate mitigation policy, but by those, including Austria and a number of environmental groups, who wish to rescue the legislation from what they see as its being fatally compromised.
The pleading in the cases is aimed at revoking the Complementary Climate Delegated Act (CCDA), in force since this January.
This supplements the Taxonomy Regulation, a list of economic activities considered sustainable and thus eligible for green investment, to include, astonishingly, natural gas and nuclear power.
What has led to this situation, in which the EU executive, ostensibly dedicated to achieving its “Fit by 55” plan to substantially reduce greenhouse emissions by 2030, finds itself challenged on its showpiece Green Legislation by one of its own member states?
The answer readily supplied by critics is that it is an appropriate response to one of the most conspicuous triumphs of greenwashing foisted on the public.
The inclusion of gas and nuclear, they say, violates the entire purpose of the Taxonomy Regulation.
The media dropped the ball
This hijacking of the EU’s key instrument of green policy has been openly accomplished through a campaign of misinformation conducted by the nuclear lobby.
In March 2021, seven nuclear member states sent a letter to the European Commission demanding the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy.
The intervention got some attention from news media at the time, but it was not of a critical kind.
When a team of independent journalists took the letter’s statements apart it found that of the 25 factual claims in the letter, 20 were either fictitious or misleading
Workaday mainstream journalists with tight deadlines to meet certainly haven’t always been keen to delve into all the nooks and crannies of a complicated story or take the responsibility to come down trenchantly on one side of an issue.
But something more insidious has emerged in recent decades: a paralysis in the face of debate, a willingness to report the scientific controversy and to present both sides in a “fair and balanced” way which gives equal time to the consensus of experts and the hype of hucksters.
Like retired journalist Jay Rosen said, “You don’t get a lot of complaints if you just write down what everyone says and leave it at that.”
But this serves the purposes of disinformation, which is not to convince, but to confuse and demoralise. Ultimately, it disables any organised effort to change things.
The Nuclear Seven’s claims are, in fact, dubious
When a team of independent journalists took the letter’s statements apart it found that of the 25 factual claims in the letter, 20 were either fictitious or misleading, including the usual dubious assertions about nuclear’s “valuable contribution” to climate neutrality.
However, the conclusions of the crowd-sourced investigation did not find a publisher among the European outlets and went largely unnoticed.
The letter by the Nuclear Seven — France, Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia — was bolstered ten days later by the release of a draft report by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC).
The extent of the influence of the Nuclear Seven and the JRC report on the ultimate decision to formally label nuclear as sustainable is unclear, but likely decisive.
It had been assigned to determine whether nuclear power met the criteria for inclusion in the taxonomy, specifically, the Do No Significant Harm principle. This, in spite of the trifling fact that the JRC was established under the Euratom Treaty and is still tasked with conducting nuclear research under the aegis, and with the funding, of Euratom.
The report concluded that there was no “science-based evidence” that nuclear could do more harm to the environment than other activities in the taxonomy.
o no one’s surprise; but to considerable criticism from experts, including one of Germany’s nuclear regulatory authorities, and from the European Commission’s own Scientific Committee on Health, Environment and Emerging Risks, both of whom pointed out that the report’s conclusions were not supported by the report’s own findings.
Others noted that the JRC mandate neglected many critical taxonomy elements. In spite of these severe strictures, when the final JRC report was published a few months later it contained no revisions.
Nuclear lobby’s swagger
The extent of the influence of the Nuclear Seven and the JRC report on the ultimate decision to formally label nuclear as sustainable is unclear, but likely decisive.
And buoyed up by this, the EU’s successful nuclear lobby has been conducting itself with noticeable swagger.
From the seven signatories of the 2021 letter, the Nuclear Alliance, as it is now known, has expanded to 14 EU countries with the addition, in February, of Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland and the Netherlands, followed by Belgium, Estonia and Sweden, with Italy as an observer.
As a crowning irony, the Nuclear Alliance is led by France, whose own national law … excludes atomic energy from being classified as a green investment.
Now representing a majority in the EU, the Alliance has been emboldened to demand, at their fourth meeting in Spain on 11 July, that nuclear energy should be treated equally with renewables when it comes to EU funding and the promotion of joint projects.
Under their banner of “tech neutrality” — an echo from the 2021 letter — the Alliance has already successfully lobbied for the acceptance of nuclear-produced “pink hydrogen” as “green hydrogen” and managed to wring important concessions in the revision of the Renewable Energy Directive, which would almost double the share renewable in the EU’s overall energy consumption by 2030.
These concessions allow for a greater role of nuclear power in meeting these targets.
Everything goes as sustainability loses its essence
As a crowning irony, the Nuclear Alliance is led by France, whose own national law — a 2015 decree on the “Energy and Ecological Transition for Climate” label — excludes atomic energy from being classified as a green investment.
In “Diversion from urgent climate action”, WISE’s nuclear expert Jan Haverkamp makes the case that vigorous nuclear industry lobbying in Brussels has had a “direct influence on the speed with which urgent climate action is taken”, slowing down the adoption of renewable energy sources, which is a boon for the fossil fuel industry.
Sustainability having lost its meaning, everything is allowed. And so, living in the Upside Down, we are witness to the triumph of the nuclear lobby.
Sustainability having lost its meaning, everything is allowed.
And so, living in the Upside Down, we are witness to the triumph of the nuclear lobby.
In the post-CCDA landscape, the nuclear zombies have acquired a new green sheen as they shamble and shuffle pointlessly, consuming all the oxygen in the climate policy conversation until they ultimately expire in obscene cost overruns and non-delivery of their boastfully promised but illusory results.
At the start of the latest stage in the war in Ukraine, in February 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged supporters of his cause and the cause of Ukrainians throughout the West to stop cheering for the war and make themselves feel strong and powerful and Churchillian by doing so on social media and instead go to Ukraine and pick up arms to help them fight against the Russian army, based on the argument, among many, that Ukraine has far fewer people to fight against the much more populous country of Russia. Unsurprisingly, very few of our pack of Western world cheerleaders in the media or political and punditry classes heeded Zelensky’s pleas.
Very few of them actually went to Ukraine to help them fight and expel the Russians. And as a result, Ukraine, which already faces a massive disadvantage in population size as compared to Russia, has really been struggling from the start, especially now that the most trained and most aggressive fighters, a lot of them, have been removed from the battlefield, killed or wounded, they’re really struggling with an inability to match the sheer number of Russian men who are either willing or required to fight in this war.
Lately, as a result, however, President Zelenskyy has become increasingly more repressive, both in terms of banning all dissent from being expressed. He has imposed martial law, making it clear that there will be no elections until this war is over, which means he will remain in power for the foreseeable future into the indefinite future and he has really had to crack down on the attempt by Ukrainian men, increasingly, either to bribe their way out of the country or to just risk their lives fleeing the country because they don’t want to be used as cannon fodder in what they obviously regard as an increasingly futile war.
We will look at the latest events in Ukraine, including on the part of President Zelenskyy, that are increasingly anti-democratic in nature, that signifies the futility of this war effort, as well as the U.S. role, and remind you of some of the worst offenses of media propaganda that have been designed to sell this war to the West, something that plainly is eroding as a majority of Americans have decided they no longer favor any further aid.
PARIS, Aug 23 (Reuters) – A heatwave curbing the availability of cooling water has prompted a production warning from operator EDF for the Saint Alban nuclear power plant on the Rhone river in eastern France for Aug. 26-27.
France’s weakened nuclear power output means the cost of its electricity for next winter is more than twice as expensive as Germany’s, as concerns over the health of the country’s reactors persist.
The “massive” gap of nearly €250 ($273) per megawatt-hour between French and German prices is because traders are pricing in more risk as they await updates on Electricite de France SA’s struggles with its aging atomic fleet, according to analysts at Engie SA’s EnergyScan. “No participants want to risk being short next winter,” they wrote.
French power for the first quarter of 2024 is trading at €416 per megawatt-hour, more than double Germany’s rate of €169. Normally a power exporter, France’s atomic generation has been gradually returning to service but still remains below historical averages.
France, which relies on nuclear energy for most of its electricity, is expected to remain heavily dependent on power imports during the winter months to meet its demand. Meanwhile, Germany closed its last nuclear plants Saturday after years of political tension over phasing out the technology, but is still very reliant on polluting coal-fired power.
French nuclear availability was at 62% on Wednesday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Nuclear output on Wednesday was above its level for this time last year after weeks of historic lows.
— With assistance by Josefine Fokuhl and Francois De Beaupuy
Sizewell C is also a site presenting unique challenges. It is located on the Suffolk Heritage Coast, facing the increasing threat of storm surges……………
The Chairs of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) Steering Committee and the NFLA English Forum have written to the Chief Executive of Centrica, which owns British Gas, urging him ‘for the sake of our planet, the people, fauna and flora of Suffolk, the wallets of your hard-pressed electricity customers, and your own company bottom-line’ to say NON to Sizewell C.
The Times reported in July that Chief Executive Chris O’Shea was considering taking a stake in the project and Councillors O’Neill and Blackburn in their letter point out the pitfalls of investment ‘which would bring with it clear financial, ESG and reputational risks for Centrica’.
EDF Energy, now wholly owned by the French state, is currently building a similar plant at Hinkley Point C in Somerset – its history has not been a happy one with the project hugely behind schedule and massively over budget. In addition, Sizewell C will utilise the same EPR reactor as Hinkley Point C, a reactor design with a chequered safety and reliability record. A reactor in China was involved in an accident and is currently again shutdown (Taishan-1) and in Finland a second one only came online after the operator was forced to carry out repairs after a succession of equipment failures (Olkiluoto-3).
Sizewell C is also a site presenting unique challenges. It is located on the Suffolk Heritage Coast, facing the increasing threat of storm surges and coastal erosion, and with climate change modelling suggesting it would become inundated and isolated; there are several sites of scientific interest nearby; and the county is under increasing water stress with fears that there will be insufficient fresh water to meet the needs of the plant as well as local people.
The Councillors point out that several prospective investors who manage large pension funds have clearly indicated that ‘they will not be dipping their financial toe into the radioactive water’ of Sizewell C. Pension managers at The People’s Pension; Nest; BT; BBC; Tesco; and Pearson have all, in correspondence seen by campaigners at Stop Sizewell C, indicated they will not be backing Sizewell C, whilst the Daily Mail reported that Nat West and BT told the paper they would also not be investing and Legal and General’s Nigel Wilson told the BBC’s Today programme: “We are not big fans of HS2 and Sizewell C”.
Councillor O’Neill believes this to be sage advice:
“At a current projected cost of £32.7 billion, Hinkley Point C’s budget is fast approaching twice its first estimate at the time of financial close, and there is no reason to believe that Sizewell C will be delivered any more quickly or any more cheaply as the construction of large nuclear power plants in the UK is a litany of projects being delivered late and vastly over budget.”
Councillor David Blackburn, Chair of the NFLAs English Forum, is a co-signatory to the letter. He is urging opponents of the project to also contact Centrica to ask them not to invest:
“It would be far wiser for Centrica to direct every available penny into the proven renewable technologies that we already have now – these would generate power and heat far more quickly and more cheaply, and generate for them a more immediate financial return, than any further investment in this monstrous nuclear boondoggle.
“The NFLAs are pleased to back the campaign launched by Stop Sizewell C asking supporters to send an email directly to Mr O’Shea asking him not to invest in Sizewell C.
In 2022, nuclear power provided 13.9% of total electricity supplied in the UK. However, as the table below [on original] illustrates, its contribution has fallen significantly since the 1990s, when it provided around a quarter of the UK’s total electricity supply.
Since 1995 there have been eight nuclear plant closures, with no new plants coming online, reducing installed nuclear capacity reducing by more than a quarter.
Declining nuclear capacity has been (more than) compensated for by the rise of renewable energy, whose share of electricity generation rose from 3% in 2000 to 42% in 2022.
The chief scientist of Greenpeace UK, Dr Doug Parr, said that the nuclear industry was making “speculative claims” regarding the proposed benefits of SMRs relative to conventional nuclear power. He said that “SMRs have no track record, but initial indications are that the familiar problems of cost overruns and delays will be repeated”.
In addition to these concerns, Steve Thomas, an emeritus professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, suggests that the focus on SMRs will divert time and resources away from energy efficiency and renewables which he believes are the “answers” to net zero electricity generation.
Professor Thomas’s position is in line with that of the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish National Party. The co-leader of the Green Party Adrian Ramsey has described nuclear as an “expensive distraction”, arguing that renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency are “cleaner and cheaper solutions that can be delivered far quicker than nuclear ever can”.
Wera Hobhouse, the Liberal Democrat energy and climate change spokesperson, has also criticised the expense of nuclear power relative to renewables. Referring to the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022, she argued it was “madness” that the government had “recently passed a new law that will allow them to add levies to energy bills to fund new nuclear plants”.
Scotland’s last remaining nuclear power plant in Torness is due to close in 2028 and SNP energy spokesperson Alan Brown has said that the UK government should be focussing its efforts on Scotland’s “renewable energy potential” rather than attempting to build more nuclear power stations.
French nuclear watchdog ASN issued a decision allowing for the continued operation of state-owned utility EDF’s Tricastin 1 nuclear reactor in southern France, the first lifetime extension granted to a French reactor after 40 years of operation.
In a decision published on Aug. 10 and seen by Reuters on Tuesday, ASN granted the reactor an extension until its next review, so for another ten years. Some 32 of France’s fleet of 56 reactors are up for their fourth ten-yearly inspection this decade, leaving French energy production reliant on securing a swathe of reactor extensions for another ten years.
nuclear-news 