Russian language should become extinct in Ukraine – security chief

According to the 2001 census, approximately 14.3 million Ukrainians (29% of the population) speak Russian as their first language. Some other estimates put that number even higher.
The language is particularly widespread in the eastern and southern regions of the country.
Rt.com 21 Oct 22,
The language is part of Moscow’s propaganda, Defence Council boss claims
The Russian language should be eradicated in Ukraine as it is allegedly being used as a tool by Moscow to wield influence on Ukrainians, one of the country’s key security officials has claimed.
The Russian language is nothing but an “element of enemy propaganda and brainwashing of our people,” Alexey Danilov, the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, said on the ‘Big Lviv Talks’ show on Friday.
The official also spoke in favor of Ukrainians learning English instead. ………
The senior official went on to criticize pundits and experts who speak Russian while appearing on Ukrainian TV.
According to the 2001 census, approximately 14.3 million Ukrainians (29% of the population) speak Russian as their first language. Some other estimates put that number even higher.
The language is particularly widespread in the eastern and southern regions of the country. Ever since the Maidan coup back in 2014, Moscow has been consistently accusing the Ukrainian government of systematically discriminating against Russian-speakers.
The perceived violations of the linguistic minority’s rights were also cited by the secessionist movements in the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions, parts of which went on to become the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, respectively. ………………………. more https://www.rt.com/russia/565118-ukrainian-official-russian-language-eradication—
France’s Nuclear Reactors Malfunction as Energy Crisis Bites
B1 The linchpin of France’s energy security faces maintenance and pipe-corrosion problems plus labor unrest
WSJ, By Matthew Dalton Oct. 23, 2022
PARIS—France is falling behind in its plans to return the country’s fleet of nuclear reactors to full power this winter after a rash of outages, raising fears that one of Europe’s key sources of electricity won’t be ramped up to counter Russia’s squeeze on the continent’s energy supplies.
The nuclear fleet was designed to act as the front line of France’s energy security. Since Moscow cut the flow of natural gas to Europe—plunging the continent into its biggest energy crisis since the 1970s oil shock—France’s vaunted nuclear fleet has been about as effective as the Maginot Line, the French fortifications that did little to stop the German invasion during World War II…………….. (subscribers only) more https://www.wsj.com/articles/frances-nuclear-reactors-malfunction-as-energy-crisis-bites-11666517581
‘Whistleblower’ says legal battle with nuclear site owners ‘almost broke me’
A consultant who claims she was dismissed by Sellafield for exposing failures to address a “toxic” working culture has been granted an appeal against her employment tribunal loss.
Yorkshire Post, By Nathan Hyde, 23 Oct 22,
Equality and diversity consultant Alison McDermott said her contract at the nuclear processing plant ended after she wrote a damning “whistleblowing” report about the human resources (HR) leadership team, claiming they had failed to address complaints about bullying and harassment.
After refusing a £160,000 settlement, she took her case to an employment tribunal. But Employment Judge Philip Lancaster dismissed her claim and ruled she was not a whistleblower, following a hearing in Leeds.
She was then ordered to pay £40,000 to help cover the legal costs of Sellafield Ltd and its parent company – the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
Ms McDermott, from Burley in Wharfedale, has been granted an appeal and she is now raising money to cover her legal costs, ahead of the next hearing in January.
Her legal team have challenged the ruling, but also criticised the judge for refusing to look at the alleged “toxic culture” at Sellafield and alleged failure of the HR team. They said this provides vital context, as it explains Ms McDermott’s decision to become a whistleblower.
“I am doing everything I can because I’m really concerned about what’s going on at Sellafield,” she said………………………………
Ms McDermott signed a two-day-a-week contract with Sellafield Ltd to work as a consultant in equality and diversity at the nuclear fuel reprocessing and decommissioning site in September 2018.
After taking on the role, looked into allegations of sexual harrasment and homophobic abuse.
She also recieved an anonymous letter claiming “serious problems” about sexual harassment “are being ignored”.
The following month, she compiled a report on the HR leadership team, saying they were viewed as “broken and dysfunctional”
by some staff and failing to effectively deal with allegations of harassment and bullying.
Shortly after filing the report, she was told her £1,500-a-day contract would be terminated due to “funding constraints”.
But during the tribunal, Sellafield’s lawyers said it was because the report, which had cost around £12,000, was “questionable and insubstantial” and “lacked any meaningful analysis”.
According to the ruling, the judge accepted the funding constraints excuse was used to allow Ms McDermott to leave “with her head held high”.
He ruled she was not a whistleblower, because she could not make any “disclosures” which are protected under UK employment law.
Sellafield Ltd, which has previously stated it is committed to eradicating bullying and harassment, has been approached for comment. https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/people/whistleblower-says-legal-battle-with-nuclear-site-owners-almost-broke-me-3889870
Rishi Sunak’s Richmond constituency is one of the potential locations for a small nuclear reactor factory
Second Welsh location shortlisted for siting of new nuclear reactor
factory. Shotton has been added to the list of potential locations for one
of the three factories across the UK which will manufacture Rolls-Royce’s
fleet of new SMR reactors.
Deeside was confirmed as the first Welsh
location when the initial round of six potential sites were announced in
July. Redcar in the northeast of England has also been added to the
shortlist of candidates list alongside Shotton.
The Rolls-Royce-led
consortium developing the new technology has confirmed the eight locations
following a bidding process which was launched in January and involved
several English regional development bodies and the Welsh Government.
The eight sites also include Tory leadership candidate – and former
Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s Richmond constituency in North Yorkshire, along
with Sunderland, Ferrybridge in West Yorkshire, Stallingborough,
Lincolnshire, and Carlisle. The winning bid has been promised investment of
up to £200m and the creation of up to 200 jobs.
Nation Cymru 22nd Oct 2022
Second Welsh location shortlisted for siting of new nuclear reactor factory
What is Regulatory Asset Base and how will it affect future energy charges for Scots?

THE UK Government is set on using a Regulatory Asset Base (RAB) model to fund
nuclear projects south of the Border. This will directly result in Scots
paying more on their energy bills. Here, former Scottish Office chief
statistician Jim Cuthbert explains what an RAB model is, and the problems
behind it. There are two main problems.
First, the construction phase of
nuclear projects is extremely long. Further, nuclear construction is
notoriously beset by technical difficulties. Midway through a nuclear
construction project, it will be extremely difficult for the regulator to
resist pressure for the RAB base to be inflated to overcome any technical
problems or uncertainties.
Secondly, the operating life of nuclear projects
is again very long, with the UK Government’s current working assumption
being about 60 years. This means that any surplus which is built into the
stream of future RAB payments will be available to be capitalised over this
long period – which will greatly increase the potential windfall profits
to be extracted by the original equity investors.
The National 23rd Oct 2022
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23071054.rab-will-affect-future-energy-charges-scots/
“Present Danger: Nuclear Power Plants in War,” The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters

what is still lacking, is a Pentagon assessment of what all this means militarily.
https://npolicy.org/present-danger-nuclear-power-plants-in-war-the-us-army-war-college-quarterly-parameters/ October 19, 2022, Author: Henry Sokolski
As the war in Ukraine drags on, daily developments at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant explode on our Google News screens. Last week, external power needed to prevent a core meltdown at the plant was cut off repeatedly, forcing reliance on emergency diesel generators.
Meanwhile, Russians have tortured, kidnapped, and killed Ukrainian staff at the plant to force them to renounce their loyalty to Ukraine and sign employment contracts with Rosatom, Russia’s electrical utility. Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Moldova, and Finland have all begun distributing iodine pills to reduce thyroid cancers if there is a loss of coolant accident at Zaporizhzhia and a radiological release that drifts their way.
And Washington’s response? Several senior US officials have condemned Russia’s assaults on Zaporizhzhia as being “irresponsible” and “dangerous.” Yet, well after Russia’s military assault on the plant, Westinghouse, the Energy and State Departments, and the President announced plans to construct nuclear power plants in Poland, Romania, and even Ukraine. No one has yet explained how or if these plants can be defended.
This is weird. Plants in Central Europe, like Zaporizhzhia, are not just electrical generators, they are stationary, potential slow-burning nuclear dispersal weapons that could conceivably trigger or even force a NATO response. Plants and such war zones present a real and present danger.
Late last month, the U.S. Army War College asked me to write a short piece on the military risks nuclear plants in war zones present. Attached, “Present Danger: Nuclear Plants in War,” is that analysis. It lays out a basic set of recommendations for the Pentagon.
Present Danger: Nuclear Power Plants in War
Zaporizhzhya’s nuclear plant, as of this writing, has been placed on cold shutdown. The plant and its military vulnerabilities, however, have generated some of the world’s most sensational headlines.1 Earlier this summer, online reports featured photographs of the plant’s damaged transformer, a system critical to assuring a steady supply of electricity to the plant’s all-important reactor coolant and safety systems. Throughout August and September, news organizations detailed how the plant’s external main power lines—built to keep electricity flowing to its reactors—had been cut. Some days, some of the plant’s six reactors were operating. Other days, none were. Repeatedly, the viability of the plant’s emergency diesel fuel electrical generators was “Topic A.”
Each of these stories raised the specter of a military-induced Fukushima: strikes against the plant or the power lines feeding into it that could cut off the electricity needed to run the reactors’ coolant pumps and safety equipment followed by nuclear fuel failures and a massive radiological release over Ukraine and its neighbors. Add to this firsthand accounts of Russian torture, the murder of “disloyal” Ukrainian reactor staff, and an emergency International Atomic Energy Agency visit, and you have everything needed for a Netflix docudrama.
What you would not have, however, and what is still lacking, is a Pentagon assessment of what all this means militarily.
Close friends have offered hints. Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida called for stationing security forces at each of Japan’s nuclear plants, and his administration also suggested the possibility of deploying dedicated missile defense systems (as Belarus has done at its nuclear plant since 2019).2 Seoul crafted military exercises this year with US forces that included explosives detonating at one or more of South Korea’s civilian reactor sites.3 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of turning Zaporizhzhya into a prepositioned, slow-burning, radiation-dispersing “nuclear weapon.”4 Meanwhile, Tobias M. Ellwood, the British House of Common’s Select Committee on Defense chairman, insisted that if Russia intentionally struck Zaporizhzhya and spread harmful radioactivity to Poland or Romania, it would trigger NATO’s Article 5.5 Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine did more than talk. All three countries prepared to distribute iodine pills to their citizens (to reduce the thyroid cancers radiation might induce if Zaporizhzhya leaked radiation).6
Wikipedia, s.v. “Crisis at the Zaporizhizhia Nuclear Power Plant,” last modified September 14, 2022, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_at_the_Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant.- Eric Johnston, “Japan to Discuss Creating New Police Unit to Guard Nuclear Plants,” Japan Times (website), March 14, 2022, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/03/14/national/nuclear-plant-police -unit/; and “TOR-M2 Air Defense Missile Systems to Protect Belarus Nuclear Power Plant,” Army Recognition (website), December 8, 2018, https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2018_global_defense_security_army _news_industry/tor-m2_air_defense_missile_systems_to_protect_belarus_nuclear_power_plant.html.
- Sang-ho Song, “Upcoming S. Korea-U.S. Training Involves Drills on Repelling Attacks, Staging Counterattacks,” Yonhap News Agency (website), August 1, 2022, https://en.yna.co.kr/view /AEN20220801004000325.
- Rebecca Falconer, “Zelensky Says Russian Forces Using Zaporizhzhia Plant as ‘Nuclear Weapon,’ ” Axios (website), September 4, 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/09/05/zelensky-russia-zaporizhzhia-plant -nuclear-weapon.
- Article 5 requires NATO members come to the defense of any other member that suffers a military attack. See Tobias M. Ellwood (@Tobias_Ellwood), “Let’s make it clear: ANY deliberate damage causing potential radiation leak to a Ukrainian nuclear reactor would be a breach of NATO’s Article 5. @thetimes,” Twitter, August 19, 2022, 1:55 a.m., https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/status/1560505699179925509?s=20& t=FYfhPvuxW0pHm8lwXfe99w.
- Josh Lederman, “Radiation Tablets Are Handed out near Ukrainian Nuclear Plants as Fears of a Leak Mount,” NBC News (website), August 26, 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war -zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-radiation-fears-iodine-rcna45041; Ben Turner, “Ukraine War: Moldova Ships in One Million Iodine Pills amid Fears of Nuclear Disaster,” Euronews (website), August 16, 2022, https: // www.euronews.com /2022 /08 /15 /moldova-ships-in-radiation-pills-as-fighting-rages-near-zaporizhzhia -nuclear-power-plant-i; and Helen Collis, “Romania to Issue Iodine Tablets as Russian War Continues in Neighboring Ukraine,” Politico (website), April 3, 2022, https://www.politico.eu/article/romania-to-issue -iodine-tablets-as-russian-aggression-continues-in-bordering-ukraine/.
Click here to read the full article.
SCOTT RITTER: Nuclear High Noon in Europe

Enter Volodymyr Zelensky, stage left. Speaking to the Lowy Institute, a nonpartisan international policy think tank in Australia, the Ukrainian president called for the international community to undertake “preventative strikes, preventive action” against Russia to deter the potential use of nuclear weapons by Russia against Ukraine
First and foremost, there has been zero talk about the employment of tactical nuclear weapons from the Kremlin.
The risk isn’t that Russia would start a pre-emptive nuclear war over Ukraine.
The risk is that America would.
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/10/19/scott-ritter-nuclear-high-noon-in-europe/ By Scott Ritter Consortium News 19 Oct 22, Now is the time for Biden to clarify U.S. nuclear doctrine. But he remains silent.
On Monday, Oct. 17, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization kicked off Operation STEADFAST NOON, its annual exercise of its ability to wage nuclear conflict. Given that NATO’s nuclear umbrella extends exclusively over Europe, the indisputable fact is that STEADFAST NOON is nothing more than NATO training to wage nuclear war against Russia.
Nuclear war against Russia.
Enter Joe Biden, center stage. Speaking at a fund raiser on Oct. 6, the president of the United States said that, “For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have a direct threat of the use of a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going.”
Biden went on: “We’ve got a guy I know fairly well. He’s not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming.”
Biden concluded: “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.”
The reader should let that sink in for a moment.
Don’t worry, NATO spokesperson Oana Lungscu reassured the rest of the world, the purpose of STEADFAST NOON is to ensure that NATO’s nuclear war-fighting capability “remains safe and effective.” It is a “routine” exercise, not linked to any current world events. Moreover, no “real” nuclear weapons will be used — just “fake” ones.
Nothing to worry about here.
Enter Jens Stoltenberg, NATO secretary general, stage right in the nuclear theater. In a statement to the press on Oct. 11, Stoltenberg declared that, “Russia’s victory in the war against Ukraine will be a defeat of NATO,” before ominously announcing, “This cannot be allowed.”
To that end, Stoltenberg stated, the STEADFAST NOON nuclear drills would continue as scheduled. These drills, Stoltenberg said, were an important deterrence mechanism in the face of Russian “veiled: nuclear threats.”
But they weren’t related to any current world events.
Enter Volodymyr Zelensky, stage left. Speaking to the Lowy Institute, a nonpartisan international policy think tank in Australia, the Ukrainian president called for the international community to undertake “preventative strikes, preventive action” against Russia to deter the potential use of nuclear weapons by Russia against Ukraine.
While many observers interpreted Zelensky’s words to imply a request for NATO to carry out a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia, Zelensky’s aides were quick to try and correct the record, saying he was simply asking for more sanctions.
Enter Joe Biden, center stage. Speaking at a fund raiser on Oct. 6, the president of the United States said that, “For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have a direct threat of the use of a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going.”
Biden went on: “We’ve got a guy I know fairly well. He’s not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming.”
Biden concluded: “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.”
While it has been made abundantly clear by the White House that Biden’s comments were his personal view, and not based on any new intelligence regarding Russian nuclear posture, the fact that a sitting U.S. president was speaking about the possibility of a nuclear “Armageddon” should send chills down the spine of every sane individual in the world.
No Kremlin Talk of Tactical Nuclear Weapons
First and foremost, there has been zero talk about the employment of tactical nuclear weapons from the Kremlin.
Zero.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has indicated that Russia would use “all the means at its disposal” to protect Russia. He said this most recently on Sept. 21, when in a televised address announcing partial mobilization, he accused the West of engaging in “nuclear blackmail,” citing “statements of some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO states about the possibility of using nuclear weapons of mass destruction against Russia.”
Putin was alluding to a statement that Liz Truss made prior to her election as British prime minister, when, in response to a question on whether she was ready to undertake the responsibility of ordering the use of the U.K.’s nuclear arsenal, she replied, “I think it’s an important duty of the prime minister and I’m ready to do that.”
“I want to remind you,” Putin said,
“that our country also has various means of destruction and in some components more modern than those of the NATO countries. And if the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people.”
Putin’s statements were consistent with that of Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, who in an address to the 10th Moscow Conference on International Security delivered on Aug. 16, asserted that Russia would not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. According to Shoigu, Russian nuclear weapons are authorized for use under “exceptional circumstances” as described in published Russian doctrine, none of which apply to the Ukraine situation. Any talk of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine, Shoigu said, was “absurd.”
Apparently not to Biden, who despite his claim to know Putin “fairly well,” got it all wrong when talking about the potential for nuclear conflict.
The risk isn’t that Russia would start a pre-emptive nuclear war over Ukraine.
The risk is that America would.
Biden’s Pledge of ‘Sole Purpose Policy’
Biden came into office in February 2021 promising to enshrine in U.S. nuclear doctrine a “sole purpose policy,” under which “the sole purpose of our nuclear arsenal should be to deter — and, if necessary, retaliate against — a nuclear attack.”
It is now the middle of October 2022, and America finds itself in a situation where the president himself fears for a potential nuclear “Armageddon.”
If ever there was a time for Biden to make good on his pledge, now is it.
But he remains silent.
The danger inherent in Biden’s silence is that Putin and other Russian officials who are concerned about Russian national security must rely upon existing published U.S. nuclear doctrine, which continues to enshrine a policy of nuclear pre-emption promulgated during the administration of President George W. Bush. Under this doctrine, nuclear weapons are but another tool in the military’s toolbox, to be used as and when needed, including occasions where the destruction of battlefield targets for the simple purpose of gaining an operational advantage is the objective.
One can argue that this sort of non-nuclear preemption has its own inherent deterrence value, a sort of “madman” kind of vibe that makes an opponent question whether the president could act in such an irrational manner…………….
Former President Donald Trump breathed new life into Nixon’s “madman theory,” telling North Korea that if it continued to threaten the United States “[t]hey will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before.” Trump went on to have three face-to-face meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jung-Un in a failed effort to bring about the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
It was under the Trump administration that the U.S. Navy deployed the W-76-2 low-yield nuclear warhead on its Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles, giving the president a greater range of options when it came to the employment of nuclear weapons………………………………………………
As this article is being written, U.S. nuclear-capable B-52 bombers are flying to Europe from their U.S. bases, where they will practice delivering nuclear weapons against a Russian target. Dozens more aircraft, flying from Volkel Air Force Base in the Netherlands (home to an arsenal of U.S. B-61 nuclear bombs), will practice employing NATO nuclear weapons against…Russia.
Russia has responded to the NATO nuclear drill by going forward with its own annual nuclear exercise, “Grom” (Thunder). ………………….
Now is not the time for drama, or theatrically inflammatory rhetoric. Now is the time for maturity, sanity…restraint. A sage leader would have recognized the possibility of misperception on the part of Russia when NATO, a mere week after being encouraged by the Ukrainian president to initiate a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia, carries out a major exercise where NATO practices dropping nuclear bombs on Russia. A sober leader would have postponed these drills and encouraged similar action from Russia regarding its nuclear exercises.
Instead, America gets an unscripted, off-the-cuff reference to a nuclear Armageddon from a narcissistic egomaniac who uses the horror of nuclear annihilation as a fund-raising mantra.
It would take but one miscalculation, a single misunderstanding to turn STEADFAST NOON into “High Noon,” and “Grom” (Thunder) into “Molnya” (Lightening).
We’ve seen this scenario before. In November 1983 NATO carried out a command post exercise, codenamed ABLE ARCHER ’83, designed to test “nuclear weapons release procedures.” The Soviets were so alarmed by this exercise, which they believed could be used to mask a preemptive nuclear strike by NATO against the Soviet Union, that they loaded nuclear warheads onto bombers, bringing NATO and the Soviet Union to the brink of a nuclear war.
The Economics Of European Nuclear Power Don’t Add Up

the French nuclear industry is a basketcase, financially speaking………… the enormous public as well as private investment involved “will put a heavy burden on the French budget”
Rainer Baake, the managing director of the Climate Neutrality Foundation in Germany, puts it bluntly. “Why would anyone invest in nuclear?” he wonders.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2022/10/21/the-economics-of-european-nuclear-power-dont-add-up/?sh=63eed2ae5d0c— Christine Ro, Oct 21, 2022,
There are clear climate and energy security benefits to nuclear power, of course. But Baake says that it’s telling that countries without liberalized markets are the ones mainly investing in new nuclear plants (China domestically and Russia internationally, including in Slovakia and Belarus).
For the huge startup costs and risks make nuclear power financially illogical, according to Baake, who as a politician helped craft a plan for Germany to transition away from nuclear energy.
In European democracies, governments need to be heavily involved in propping up the nuclear industry. And though extensive subsidies have also helped renewable power to expand, renewables are now historically cheap. (They would be even cheaper without old-fashioned wholesale pricing systems based on gas, as in the UK.)
One place that has seen massive reductions in the prices of solar and wind energy is Germany, which has embarked on a double phaseout of nuclear and coal power. After protracted legal and political negotiations, the nuclear phaseout was supposed to have been completed in 2022. But the energy price crisis, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has led to the decision to keep two plants running until at least April 2023.
One of those plants, Neckarwestheim 2, is in the state of Baden-Württemberg. Andre Baumann is the state secretary for the Ministry for the Environment, Climate Protection and Energy Sector in Baden-Württemberg. As he points out, “the sun will not send us an energy bill.” Thanks in part to cheap solar energy, by 2035 the state is expected to produce more energy than it uses. This will involve a rapid ramp-up of supply: “Currently we can’t deliver solar panels and converters fast enough.”
In France, currently half of nuclear power plants are offline. And according to Yves Marignac, who heads the Nuclear and Fossil Energy Unit at the négaWatt Association in France, the French nuclear industry is a basketcase, financially speaking.
For one thing, as with the Olympics, costs for decommissioning always overrun. There’s a “lack of provisions for covering long-term costs,” says Marignac, and French nuclear operators consistently underestimate the expenses. Marignac says that according to global experiences, it currently costs about EUR 1 billion (approx. USD 974 million) to decommission each reactor.
Part of the problem is that the French operators are allowed to factor in just hazy intentions of reusing nuclear materials, which are then excluded from their waste disposal responsibilities. The separated plutonium stockpile is now at 80 tons, according to Marignac, with nuclear companies claiming that they’ll firm up plans for this material in later decades. And plutonium from energy production wouldn’t be practical for military use, Marignac says.
Long-term waste disposal is an even murkier matter. In Switzerland, the government and nuclear operators both contribute to funds for decommissioning and waste disposal. The current financing, of CHF 23.1 billion (roughly the same amount in USD), includes two deep geological repositories, although they wouldn’t even begin operating until at least 2050. The funds wouldn’t need to be paid in until 2100 at the earliest. Even within these nearly-impossible-to-plan-for timeframes, that CHF 23.1 billion is almost certainly a vast underestimate.
As for creating a reactor in the first place, many construction projects never actually make it to the operation stage. There is “virtually no chance of making new reactors profitable under current market conditions,” Marignac asserts.
Indeed, the Swiss energy company Axpo would be uninterested in building new ones if the law there were to change to allow this, while the exhausted German nuclear operators don’t even want an extension of current licenses. Meanwhile, France has green-lit at least six new facilities.
As the enormous public as well as private investment involved “will put a heavy burden on the French budget,” Marignac argues that the French utility EDF needs to be fully nationalized.

What of smaller, less clunky sources of nuclear power: the small modular reactors (SMRs) championed by the likes of Bill Gates? Baake is again characteristically direct regarding SMRs. “There’s only one problem: they don’t exist.”
The obvious question then is what should replace nuclear power, especially in nuclear-dependent countries like France and Bulgaria. The usual answer is renewable energy, although it’s not clear how quickly their use could be increased given supply issues (not to mention the human rights abuses associated for instance with solar components sourced from Xinjiang, China).
Amid painfully high energy prices, Europe is bracing for a winter that will be even costlier. Eventually, the costs of energy infrastructure will be passed on to taxpayers in some form, for multiple generations.
For many nuclear observers looking just at the balance sheets, nuclear power should be relegated to the past.
A European scramble for nuclear energy is hampered by risks of terrorist and cyber attacks, as well as the wastes problem.

Fabian Lüscher, who heads the nuclearenergy section at the Swiss Energy Foundation (SES), says that Europe’s ageing nuclear fleet is not adapted to deal with contemporary terrorist attacks and cyberattacks. “You even have to think of those very unlikely possibilities when planning risky infrastructure,” Mr Lüscher argues. And then, of course, there’s the problem of nuclear waste.
Decisions around the future of nuclear energy are urgently needed in
Europe. Russian supplies of natural gas have been disrupted amidst the war
in Ukraine, energy prices have soared to emergency levels. Meanwhile, some
countries are suffering a lingering hangover from the Covid-19 pandemic.
In France, half of the clearcountry’s nuclear power plants are currently not
operating. The main reasons are corrosion, planned maintenance, and delayed
maintenance due to pandemic-linked staffing issues, explains Phuc Vinh
Nguyen, who researches European energy policy at the Jacques Delors Energy
Center in France. Mr Nguyen warns that across the EU the energy price
crisis will probably last until at least 2024.
In this situation, some see the use of nuclear reactors as a way to decouple from Russian natural gas.
Russian influence also looms over many aspects of nuclear power generation:
Russia dominates the supply of nuclear fuel, the enrichment of uranium, and
the building of nuclear power plants in other countries. At Leibstadt,
Switzerland’s largest and youngest nuclear power plant, half of the uranium
supply currently comes from Russia. There, as elsewhere, there’s a scramble
to source more uranium from outside the Russian sphere of influence.
Fabian Lüscher, who heads the nuclear energy section at the Swiss Energy
Foundation (SES), says that Europe’s ageing nuclear fleet is not adapted to
deal with contemporary terrorist attacks and cyberattacks. “You even have
to think of those very unlikely possibilities when planning risky
infrastructure,” Mr Lüscher argues. And then, of course, there’s the
problem of nuclear waste.
BBC 21st Oct 2022
NATO Chief Raises Nuclear War Fever
Eurasia Review, By Patial RC 22 Oct 22, The world fails to learn lessons from the past Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 and the NATO Exercise ‘Able Archer’ in November 1983 that almost triggered a Nuclear War.Soviet intelligence was suspicious that the US might carry out a nuclear strike under the guise of a drill. “In response to this exercise, the Soviets readied their forces, including their nuclear weapons for launch and that in a way scared the NATO.The Able Archer was designed to simulate the start of a nuclear war, and many argue that it almost did.
Putin told reporters following a summit of ex-Soviet nations in Kazakhstan. “We do not set ourselves the task of destroying Ukraine and does not plan more massive strikes against Ukraine for now.”
Putin has repeatedly signalled he could use nuclear weapons to defend his country. Russia’s nuclear doctrine envisions “exclusively retaliatory measures intended to prevent the destruction of the Russian Federation as a result of direct nuclear strikes or the use of other weapons that raise the threat for the very existence of the Russian state.”
NATO Chief Creates Nuclear War Hysteria
NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg having been the Prime Minister of Norway twice amid rising tensions with Russia over the war in Ukraine went ahead with the Western military alliance annual routine nuclear deterrent exercises “Steadfast Noon” from 17 October 2022. Fourteen NATO countries without France are taking part in this exercise led by the major headquarters of the Allied Powers in Europe, based in Mons. Some 60 combat aircraft, including Tornado and F-16s, are being used, as well as surveillance aircraft and tankers mobilized for this exercise organized more than 1,000 kilometers from the Russian border.
NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg instead of canceling or postponing the NATO Nuclear Exercises ‘Steadfast Noon’ amid rising tensions with Russia said on the eve of a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Brussels “It would send a very wrong signal if we suddenly now canceled a routine, long-time planned exercise because of the war in Ukraine.
……………………………… Why could not the UN take the initiative to stop the NATO Nuclear Exercises ‘Steadfast Noon’ to avoid misunderstandings, miscalculations to increase the risk of escalation and mistakenly trigger a Nuclear War Hysteria!NATO Chief Stoltenberg through his actions and decisions is responsible for raising the Nuclear War Fever.This rash decision was not expected from the NATO Chief Stoltenberg who has been twice the Prime Minister of Norway. Appears his decisions come from the White House who looks to weaken Europe and Russia.US President Joe Biden has labeled Putin as a ‘War Criminal’ and has declared that Putin “Cannot remain in power.” https://www.eurasiareview.com/22102022-nato-chief-raises-nuclear-war-fever-oped/
Russia says U.S. blocked its participation in nuclear conference
MOSCOW, Oct 21 (Reuters) – The Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom said on Friday that the United States had effectively blocked Russia’s participation in a nuclear energy conference in Washington by failing to issue entry visas.
Relations between the United States and Russia have sunk to their lowest level since the depths of the Cold War after Moscow sent its armed forces troops into Ukraine in February.
Rosatom and Russia’s industrial safety watchdog, Rostekhnadzor, planned to attend the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) ministerial conference in Washington on Oct. 26-28 but have yet to receive visas, Rosatom said in a statement………………………………. more https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-says-us-blocked-its-participation-nuclear-conference-2022-10-21/
The Generational Divide Over Nuclear Power
The scientists at the Cigéo lab in France are not including the risk of deliberate attacks in their research. All of this – the security risks, the enormous uncertainty around waste, the potential for nuclear proliferation – concerns the activists at the House of Resistance.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2022/10/21/the-generational-divide-over-nuclear-power/?sh=5d8d990a6b13 Christine Ro 21 Oct 22
Maud Simon is one of the younger residents of the House of Resistance, a home in the bucolic French commune of Bure. The setting is peaceful, with fewer than 100 residents amidst the fields and cottages.
But Simon and her housemates want disruption. The activists, part of the anti-nuclear network Sortir du nucléaire, purchased this house back in 2006 to mobilize against the nearby Cigéo research laboratory, where scientists are testing deep geological disposal for eventually storing nuclear waste. The activists say there hasn’t been enough information about the risks of this research, and are opposed more generally to the legitimation of nuclear energy given its risks.
The House of Resistance is now home to a fluctuating population of about 5 to 40 people, though this can swell to as many as 400 during a special event.
Simon has been living here for two years. She believes that many young French people favor nuclear energy because of propaganda disseminated by the pro-nuclear lobby, which has spread for instance to YouTube. She’s somewhat unusual, as she grew up in an anti-nuclear family.
A short drive away is the reason that Simon and her fellow protestors chose this site.
To get to the heart of the Cigéo nuclear research laboratory, I’m squeezed with nine other people into an elevator descending 490 meters.
Lasting five minutes, it’s the longest lift ride of my life.
In this peaceful corner of northeast France, scientists are working on a problem that no one, in any country, has solved: what to do permanently with the waste produced by nuclear power generation. In France the total inventory of such waste amounted to 1.7 million m3 at the end of 2020, according to the French National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management (Andra), which operates the Cigéo site.
Our guide’s name at the Cigéo facility is, appropriately enough, Jacques Delay. Dealing with the waste problem involves a high degree of uncertainty and epic timescales (Switzerland, for instance, requires planning for up to 1 million years of containment for any deep geological repository there).
Geologist Delay says that the scientists are expecting technology to continue progressing at its current rate. So certain decisions will be left to future scientists.
Andra hopes to begin operating long-term disposal by 2050, and to have reversible storage until about 2150, in case future scientists come up with a better solution. Then the deep geological disposal would be sealed off completely.
Every 25 metres or so in the Cigéo facility, the construction of the drifts (passageways) changes, to allow for years-long experiments on factors like corrosion and swelling. Walls are lined with concrete of different quality and rigidity levels, for instance. The shape of the drifts fluctuates as well. Scientists here run tests with waste after it’s waited on the surface for 70 years, and cooled to below 90°C.
The scientists at the Cigéo lab in France are not including the risk of deliberate attacks in their research. All of this – the security risks, the enormous uncertainty around waste, the potential for nuclear proliferation – concerns the activists at the House of Resistance.
Nuclear science like that on display at Cigéo is clearly a point of pride in France, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and has embraced nuclear energy much more than its neighboring countries. Yves Marignac, who leads the Nuclear and Fossil Energy Unit at the négaWatt Association, notes, “There’s no equivalent worldwide of a country that has developed so much nuclear industry relative to its size.”
The French nuclear fleet is large but not always reliable. Currently, half of France’s currently 56 nuclear reactors are currently out of operation due to corrosion and maintenance issues.
Rainer Baake, the managing director of the Climate Neutrality Foundation in Germany, believes that young people are more pro-nuclear because “they never experienced nuclear fallout.” The former politician says that Germans were very enthusiastic about nuclear energy until the Chernobyl disaster, which led to radioactivity contaminating German gardens. He’s helped shape Germany’s subsequent transition away from nuclear energy, which was meant to have been completed in 2022 but has now been postponed due to the energy supply crisis.
Nuclear is increasingly popular among young people – for instance in Finland, home to the world’s first deep geological repository for nuclear waste – not only because they have less memory of the risks, but also because of widespread concern about climate change. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear energy is mostly emissions-free; unlike solar and wind energy, it can operate 24/7. And climate anxiety is more pressing than radiophobia for many people who grew up after the Cold War.
The world’s most famous youth climate activist, Greta Thunberg, declared on October 12 that it would be a mistake for Germany to phase out nuclear energy altogether. This set her apart from political units like Germany’s Green Party – which was one of the parties that negotiated for the closure of nuclear plants by the end of 2022 – and long-established environmental organizations like Greenpeace.
Thunberg’s support for nuclear power appears somewhat ambivalent, as she was arguing that nuclear should not be eased off in favor of coal plants, which are set to continue operating in Germany until 2030. After all, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu has argued, air pollution from fossil fuels kills more people than the harms from nuclear energy.
Some young people are all in on nuclear. In North America, “nuclear bros” show that nuclear energy’s popularity is picking up steam among young men.
Nuclear energy is one of the most contentious topics within the environmental movement. To ensure its relevance going forward, the anti-nuclear camp will need to make its core issues – including safety, costs, nuclear proliferation, and the pesky problem of nuclear waste – resonate with more young people like Simon.
Renewable energy brings record savings to Europe

Renewable energies have allowed the European Union to avoid €99bn in
fossil gas imports since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, with an
increase of €11bn compared to last year thanks to record growth in wind
and solar capacity, according to a new report.
Edie 20th Oct 2022
Nuclear Free Local Authorities urge the UK’s new Chancellor to scrap plan to invest in the Sizewell nuclear white elephant

Hot on the heels of the new Chancellor’s U-turn of everything his
predecessor held dear, the Chair of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities has
written to Jeremy Hunt to urge him to reverse the promised investment of
£700 million made by the previous prime minister on a flying-visit to
Sizewell C and to withdraw from making a commitment to taking an equity
stake in the nuclear ‘white elephant’.
In his letter to the Chancellor, NFLA Chair, Councillor David Blackburn asks for common sense and caution to prevail: “Once the government has Sizewell C on the hook, rather than
land the fish, it is more likely the fish will swallow you whole! Nuclear
projects are always inevitably delivered way over cost and way over time,
and, as an equity holder, His Majesty’s Government will be saddled with
ever greater demands for cash with an ever-decreasing likelihood of
offloading this turkey to a private investor.”
NFLA 20th Oct 2022
Olkiluoto nuclear station – more delays due to damage to water feed pumps
Damage has been detected in the inner parts of the feed water pumps of the
turbine plant at Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 EPR reactor, plant owner-operator
Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) has said. “In connection with maintenance
and inspection work, damage has been observed in the inner parts of the
feed water pumps of the Olkiluoto 3 turbine plant. The matter will probably
have an impact on the progress of the trial operation of Olkiluoto 3 and
the start of regular electricity production,” TVO noted. According to
Siemens, which is part of the plant supplier consortium, the impact of
damage to the feed water pumps on the schedule is not yet known. Together
with the plant supplier, TVO actively participating in the investigation
work. The feed water pumps located in the turbine plant of the nuclear
power plant pump water from the feed water tank to the evaporators. Damage
to the pumps has no effect on nuclear safety.
Nuclear Engineering International 20th Oct 2022
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsmore-delays-to-ol3-10102381
-
Archives
- May 2026 (102)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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

