nuclear-news

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

Common Security Approaches to Resolve the Ukraine and European Crises

Common Security Approaches to Resolve the Ukraine and European Crises23.01.22 – United States – Abolition 2000   Pressenza, By Joseph Gerson* 23 Jan 22,

We have been bombarded by news reports and announcements from President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken that a Russian invasion of Ukraine is imminent. On January 18, as he prepared to leave for Kyiv, Berlin and Geneva, Secretary of State Blinken, said “We’re now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine.” A day later President Biden announced that he expected Russian President Putin to order an invasion. And both backed their fear inducing warnings with the less than fully accurate claim of NATO unity and the threat that a Russian invasion of Ukraine will be met with “severe, and united response.”

Remarkably, across Europe, there has been a relative absence of fears of an imminent Russian invasion. The belief there is that the 100,000 troops Russia has deployed along its borders with Ukraine are a negotiation ploy. And when Secretary Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov met in Geneva they committed to future diplomacy.

This has been a totally unnecessary crisis, fueled in large measure by U.S. insistence on maintaining NATO’s “open door” policy, when the reality is that there is no way that France or Germany will agree to Ukraine becoming a NATO member state. Resolution of the crisis could be hastened were President Biden or Secretary Blinken to state the obvious: “We understand there are deep insecurities on all sides. Given that our allies are in no hurry to welcome Ukraine into NATO, we propose a moratorium on new NATO memberships. Beyond that, we look forward to a range of constructive negotiations to establish an enduring Eurasian security framework for the 21st century.”

Such a statement would bring all the contending forces back from the brink. Instead, U.S. insistence on maintaining the possibility of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO is exacerbating the multifaceted crisis.

The crisis has been years in the making. In 1990, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Paris Charter, signed by 34 heads of state, “ushered in a new era as states made an unprecedented commitment to domestic individual freedoms, democratic governance, human rights, and transnational cooperation.”

[i] Seven years later, it was followed by the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which enshrined commitments to equal security and to not seek security at the expense of the other’s security. And in 1999 the OSCE’s European Security Charter its member states committed “not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

More than Ukraine’s uncertain fate, it is the violation of these commitments to create a post-Cold War European security order that lies at the heart of the current dangerous crisis. Malcolm X would have said, the chickens have come home to roost.

Rather than acknowledge and compensate for errors made along the way, U.S. and NATO leaders’ arrogant inability to acknowledge legitimate Russian security concerns have precipitated what is termed the Ukraine crisis. It is actually a trans-European crisis. Contrary to all sides’ harsh public rhetoric, a near-term Russian invasion of Ukraine appears to be unlikely. But it could be triggered by an unintended incident, accident, or miscalculation.

There are realpolitik and Common Security diplomatic options that could resolve the crisis and build on the Paris Charter and the NATO-Russia Founding Agreement. They have been advocated by Former U.S. ambassador to Russia James Matlock and in off the record Track II discussions among other U.S., Russian, and European former officials and security analysts.

Three interrelated crises – not one

Developing mutually beneficial diplomatic solutions requires disaggregating what is commonly presented as a single crisis. We are, unfortunately, confronted by at least three entwined crises, not one: (1) The struggle between Galician (western) and Russian-oriented (eastern) Ukrainians over Ukraine’s identity and its future; (2) the crisis in Russian-Ukrainian relations, which has deep historic roots; (3) competing ambitions of two empires that are in decline (U.S. and Russia) to reinforce their power and influence across Europe, compounded by the inability of European nations to create an enduring post-Cold War security system.

Ukraine’s Identity Crisis: Given stark divisions in the United States, which date to 1619, our civil war, and across the 20th century, we should appreciate the histories that reverberate across Ukrainian culture and politics. For those wanting detail, Richard Sakwa’s Frontline Ukraine is an excellent resource. In short, Kievan Rus’ and its 988 conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy lie at the foundation of the Russian nation. In the 1400s, Ukraine became part of the Lithuanian and later Polish empires. As a consequence, those in the Galician west are predominantly Catholic, Western oriented, and Ukrainian speakers, while those in the east are primarily Russian Orthodox, Russian oriented, and Russian speakers. In pursuit of creating a warm water port for a Black Sea fleet, Russia’s Catherine the Great annexed Crimea in 1783. and during three Russo-Turkic wars and divisions of Poland during her rule, Ukraine fell fully under Russian control.

In the 20th century, millions of Ukrainians died of starvation in the 1920s as a consequences of Stalin’s brutal agricultural collectivization. With no love for the Soviets or Russia, anti-Soviet forces in eastern Ukraine allied with Hitler and joined his devasting march to the east. The first major Holocaust massacre of Jews was inflicted at Babi Yar, a ravine near Kyiv. At war’s end, Ukraine was re-unified with the Soviet Union, with Khrushchev transferring Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. With the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became an independent state, surrendering the arsenal of Soviet nuclear weapons that had been left behind in exchange for solemn Russian, U.S., and European commitments to honor Ukraine’s territorial integrity…………………………

Russia & Ukraine: The Russian-Ukrainian dimension of the crisis speaks for itself. Kiev was central to the creation of the Russian nation a millennium ago. Eastern Ukraine remained an integral element of the Russian and Soviet empires for centuries……….

………Most Russians believe the Crimea and eastern Ukraine are inherently Russian, and more than a few extend Russian claims to Kyiv.

Most Ukrainians and much of the world don’t share this perspective. There is a long history of Ukrainian resistance to Russian dominance and rule.

…………..  Gorbachev’s refusal to intervene to preserve Soviet East European clients and the breaching of the Berlin wall marked the end of Yalta’s division of Europe. Russia’s buffer against the West disappeared, ushering in a period of hope and uncertainty. For a brief period, building on the Common Security paradigm (the understanding that security cannot be achieved against a rival nation, but only with the rival) that laid the foundation for the end of the Cold War and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty), and reinforced by the 1990 and 1997 accords, a vision of a common house of Europe prevailed.

This vision and the commitments were shattered when President’s Clinton and George W Bush took advantage of Russia’s immediate post-Soviet chaos and weakness by extending NATO to the East. The German Reunification Treaty had earlier been negotiated on the condition that no NATO forces would be based in eastern Germany. Pledges made by President Bush and Secretary of State Baker in the course of the negotiations to the effect that NATO would not move a centimeter closer to Russia led the Russian elite to believe these U.S. commitments. That Gorbachev failed to get these commitments in writing is rued by Russians in the know to this day.

Notably, the author of the United States’ Cold War containment doctrine, George Kennan, warned at the time that expanding NATO to Russia’s border would trigger a new Cold War. ……..

……   In the decades that followed, the NATO alliance reached Russia. U.S. and German troops are now based and conduct exercises along Russia’s borders.

………. There is a pro-Western government in Kyiv. And NATO signaled possible future Ukrainian and Georgian membership, while NATO forces conduct exercises along Russia’s border, and U.S. naval and air forces are pressing against Russia across the Baltic and Black Seas. It should thus be no surprise that Putin has responded in the tradition of the best defense being a good offense.

………. Putin has now challenged the U.S., NATO and certainly Ukraine by surrounding the country from three sides with 100,000 troops and which are arguably in a position to conquer all or part of that nation.

……………………  while President Biden and NATO have for the moment ruled out a military counterattack should Russia invade Ukraine, nothing is certain in war. Just as unanticipated gunshots triggered an unwanted World War in 1914, today an incident, accident or miscalculation, compounded by powerful nationalist forces, could lead to wider, great power, and potentially nuclear war.

Fortunately, Russian diplomats have repeated that Russia does not intend to invade Ukraine, and diplomacy remains the order of the day.

Common security alternatives

We may be horrified by Putin’s authoritarian rule and by Russia’s past military aggression and today’s implied threats. That doesn’t make them go away. The reality is that the U.S., Russia, and many of their allies have been practicing international relations in the tradition of Mafia dons. President Biden’s and Secretary of State Blinken’s arrogant, stiff necked, anti-historical, and ultimately self-defeating insistence on holding to the fantasy of possible future Ukrainian NATO membership only deepens the compounded crisis. When elephants fight, they threaten not only one another, but the ants and grass beneath them. Someone is bound to be hurt.

The Biden Administration would do well to begin by stating that in the face of the West’s violations of the Paris Charter, the NATO-Russia Founding Act, and the understandings that NATO would not move another centimeter eastward, the U.S. acknowledges that Russians have more than a little reason on their side.

Despite the bellicose tone of the public rhetoric and propaganda that preceded and has followed recent diplomatic encounters, some progress has been made. For the first time in two years there have been something approaching open and “business like”—if not warm—exchanges. All sides’ red lines have been clearly identified. Behind closed doors, there is increasing recognition that resolution of the crisis will require reciprocity in future negotiations on the range of outstanding issues. And commitments for future negotiations have been made.

Winston Churchill, racist, colonialist, and alcoholic though he was, had it right when he said that “jaw-jaw is better that war-war.” Difficult and complex though the challenges of this moment may be, with rationale and Common Security diplomacy, this crisis can be transformed into an opportunity………..

As former U.S. ambassador to Russia James Matlock and others have advised, there is an obvious solution to the Ukraine crisis: Building from the Minsk II agreement that made the 2014 ceasefire possible, U.S., Russian, Ukrainian, and European negotiations should lead to the creation of a neutral and federated Ukrainian state………………….

As former U.S. ambassador to Russia James Matlock and others have advised, there is an obvious solution to the Ukraine crisis: Building from the Minsk II agreement that made the 2014 ceasefire possible, U.S., Russian, Ukrainian, and European negotiations should lead to the creation of a neutral and federated Ukrainian state………..

In the above mentioned Track II discussions, a host of other possible options, compromises and processes to address broader Eurasian insecurities have been identified. We can hope that they are embraced by those in power and serve as the basis for future negotiations. 

They include:

  • With Russia insisting on permanently banning Ukrainian NATO membership, and both France and Germany opposed to Ukraine joining the alliance, the Biden Administration could save face by agreeing to a moratorium on new NATO memberships for the next 15 years. This commitment could be extended by mutual agreement after that. A model for such an agreement would be the European Union’s functional moratorium on consideration of Turkey’s application for E.U. membership.
  • Moldova, and Georgia, as well as Ukraine could become neutral states.
  • While reaffirming Russia’s sovereign right to deploy its military forces wherever it deems appropriate WITHIN Russia, there could be an agreement by both sides to limit military exercises and border patrols.
  • Renewed arms control negotiations, beginning with renewal of the INF and Open Skies treaties,
  • no deployment of NATO conventional or nuclear strike forces in countries bordering Russia and moving to major reductions of their omnicidal nuclear arsenals.

A former senior U.S. military officer, now a scholar at a leading U.S. university notes that there would be advantages for the U.S. and NATO to use the NATO-Russian Foundation agreement as a mutually beneficial foundation for future agreements. They place limits on Russia’s actions, as well as those of the U.S. and NATO………………..

Europeans involved in these discussions have suggested negotiating agreements on non-deployment of strike forces by either side, negotiating an updated version of the INF Treaty which Trump and then the Russians abandoned, and banning potentially-first strike-related “missile defenses”.

Another world, at least another, more peaceful and just Europe, is possible. We must press for continued commitments to negotiations and do what we can to ensure that rational common security solutions prevail.

*Dr. Joseph Gerson is a member of the Abolition 2000 Global Council and President of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security.       The original article can be found here      https://www.pressenza.com/2022/01/common-security-approaches-to-resolve-the-ukraine-and-european-crises/

January 24, 2022 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | 3 Comments

Europe’s nuclear waste remains an unsolved and highly dangerous problem – EU Assessment Report

Nuclear waste from nuclear power plants remains an unsolved and highly dangerous problem, as spent fuel must remain isolated from the environment for a million years. In an attempt to solve the nuclear waste problem, an EU-wide regulation was introduced in 2011, the “Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste”.

This Directive tried to force EU member states to address the issue seriously, after this had been neglected for decades – thus immediately proving that nuclear waste has never been effectively dealt with.

The national waste management policies of the EU member states are still inadequate in many respects. The European Commission concluded in its latest report in 2019 that more needs to be done; this is also reflected in the high number of infringement proceedings.

In the Assessment Report, we not only address shortcomings in transparency and participation, but also problems in the inventory data, unsolved issues in the multinational repository search, incomprehensible
cost estimates and lack of financing. The Onkalo repository under construction in Finland is often presented as a game changer by the nuclear lobby, although the safety of the technology used is questionable due to new findings.

 Don’t Nuke the Taxonomy 21st Jan 2022

Click to access Nuclear_Waste_Management_in_the_EU_Assessment_Report_2022_01_4257abfafb.pdf

January 24, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, wastes | Leave a comment

How France greenwashes nuclear weapons

President Macron has announced investment of one billion euros in research and construction of small modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs are small nuclear reactors that are to be used primarily for submarine propulsion and thus for military purposes in distant theatres of war

Behind the planned modernisation of French nuclear power, allegedly to ensure cheaper electricity, nestles the agenda of its nuclear weapons programme. For years now, the state has imposed the exorbitant costs of its civilian-military nuclear industry on the French public.


France plans to modernise its nuclear power – allegedly to insure cheaper and greener electricity. Yet behind it nestles a nuclear weapons agenda   https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/foreign-and-security-policy/how-france-greenwashes-nuclear-weapons-5668/ 23 Jan 22,

At the turn of the year, France assumed the presidency of the Council of the European Union. And last week, the EU defence ministers met informally to talk about the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Among other issues, they discussed nuclear security and nuclear deterrence strategies.

In recent years, the French president has been a strong advocate of nuclear power. Historically, France’s independent development of nuclear technology for atomic weapons has been an important source of national pride. Since the 1990s, however, nuclear power has been declining as a consequence of the Chernobyl disaster. Annual reports by Mycle Schneider, an international consultant on energy and nuclear policy, show that this is a part of a global trend. Nevertheless, France continues to be a tireless advocate of this technology.

Nuclear answers for green energy and weapons

On 1 January 2022, a draft regulation of the European Commission classified the investment in nuclear energy and natural gas as sustainable. This concerns billions of euros in financial support in the so-called EU Taxonomy. Emmanuel Macron was keen to acquire a ‘Green Label’ for nuclear energy. France’s real interests concerning nuclear energy emerged clearly in a speech Macron delivered on a visit to Framatome’s Le Creusot facility in 2020: ‘Without civilian nuclear energy there is no military use of this technology – and without military use there is no civilian nuclear energy’. In a nutshell, this means that without a cutting-edge nuclear industry France cannot continue to expand and modernise its nuclear weapons arsenal. This remains true for all nuclear weapons states.

At present, these states are upgrading their arsenals. Russia and the United States are procuring new delivery systems – such as hypersonic missiles – that will be able to deliver their nuclear bombs much more quickly and accurately, leaving the enemy with no time to defend themselves. Thus, a new nuclear arms race has begun.

The US think tank Atlantic Council is quite open about how crucial it regards civilian use of nuclear power to be for national security policy: the civilian US nuclear industry is a U.S. strategic asset of vital importance for US national security. Similar formulations can be found in the speeches of other presidents of nuclear weapons states. Its civilian nuclear complex costs the United States at least USD 42.4bn a year. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) claims that all nuclear weapons states together invest over USD 100bn a year in their nuclear weapons arsenals.

France, too, wants to join in the ongoing technological development in other nuclear weapons states for quite some time. President Macron has announced investment of one billion euros in research and construction of small modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs are small nuclear reactors that are to be used primarily for submarine propulsion and thus for military purposes in distant theatres of war. The new Hunter class submarines underline France’s great-power ambitions. This needs to be understood against the background of the collapsed submarine deal with Australia. Last year Australia announced that it was cancelling its contract to buy French diesel submarines in favour of US and UK nuclear technology.

Flexible submarine-based nuclear weapons systems have major strategic importance for all nuclear weapons states. They have the capability of going for up to three months without surfacing. They can cover great distances at high speeds undetected and surface almost wherever they want around the globe. They are capable of launching up to 20 missiles, each with a dozen individual guided warheads. All this plays a key role in the nuclear weapons doctrine of the five ‘official’ nuclear weapons states, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China. At the same time, the possession of this technology underpins these countries’ great-power status. France, like the other nuclear weapons states, is keen to consolidate its status.

Exposing the French agenda

The first meeting of EU defence ministers under the French Council Presidency was held on 12–13 January 2022 in Brest. This is where France’s sea-based nuclear weapons are stationed, making this a clear demonstration of its military power. As early as his 2020 speech in Le Creusot, the French President confirmed his country’s military ambitions: ‘the nuclear industry will remain the cornerstone of our strategic autonomy. It affects every aspect of deterrence, powering our nuclear submarines, submarines for launching ballistic missiles, and powering our nuclear aircraft carriers.’

Nuclear power and nuclear sharing are controversial in the European Union. Austria and Luxembourg have sharply criticised the EU Taxonomy. At the same time, there has been a multilateral UN treaty banning weapons of mass destruction since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons of 22 January 2021.

Behind the planned modernisation of French nuclear power, allegedly to ensure cheaper electricity, nestles the agenda of its nuclear weapons programme. For years now, the state has imposed the exorbitant costs of its civilian-military nuclear industry on the French public. The costs of building the pressurised water reactor in Flamanville, for example, ran to €19.4bn. Ultimately, electricity customers and investors subsidise military applications with ‘climate-saving nuclear power’.

In any case, as France takes over the EU Council Presidency it is now perfectly placed to promote the civilian-military use of nuclear energy and a European security and defence strategy based on the doctrine of nuclear deterrence.

January 24, 2022 Posted by | climate change, France, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Germany formally opposes inclusion of nuclear energy in EU’s ”sustainable” taxonomy

Germany cries foul over nuclear energy in EU’s green rule book, Daily Sabah, BY REUTERS, BERLIN JAN 23, 2022 German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party coalition government has raised objections to a European Union draft plan to label nuclear power plants as a sustainable energy source in a formal letter to Brussels, ministers said on Saturday.

The EU taxonomy aims to set a gold standard for green investments, helping climate-friendly projects to pull in private capital and stamping out “greenwashing,” where investors and companies overstate their eco-credentials.

“As the federal government, we have once again clearly expressed our rejection of the inclusion of nuclear energy. It is risky and expensive,” Vice Chancellor and Economy Minister Robert Habeck said in a joint statement with Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, both senior members of the Greens party.

In its letter to Brussels, published by the Economy Ministry on its webpage, the German government also pointed to the lack of any safety requirements regarding nuclear power plants.

“Serious accidents with large, cross-border and long-term hazards to humans and the environment cannot be excluded,” Berlin said in its letter, adding that the question of where to store radioactive waste in the long term was still unanswered.

Habeck and Lemke said that Berlin should reject the plan in their opinion if the European Commission disregarded Germany’s objections and left the draft plan unchanged.

However, German government sources told Reuters earlier this month that coalition parties wanted to avoid escalating the EU dispute and agreed in coalition talks behind closed doors to abstain in any upcoming vote.

Long delayed

The EU rules have been long delayed, with countries split over whether nuclear energy and natural gas deserve a green badge. Austria has already said it would take legal action if the European Commission proceeds with its draft plan to label both as sustainable investments……………………….. 

The commission hopes to adopt a final draft by the end of the month.  https://www.dailysabah.com/business/energy/germany-cries-foul-over-nuclear-energy-in-eus-green-rule-book

January 24, 2022 Posted by | climate change, Germany, incidents | Leave a comment

The tribulations of France’s Flamanville nuclear reactor.

“EDF is struggling to sleep off its nuclear power”. Here is the title
at the top of page 3 of the Chained Duck of this Wednesday, January 19,
2022. Is this a new article following the announcement, a week ago, of a
delay and an additional cost of 300 million euros for the site of the
future Flamanville EPR reactor?

No, there is no question of welding rework
operations taking longer than expected. “The energy company must face a
formidable puzzle encountered on the reactor vessel, where nuclear fission
takes place”, announces from the outset journalist Hervé Liffran.

The concern was flushed out followingan incident on the other side of the
world, in China. The Taishan nuclear power plant, with the world’s first
EPR reactor in service, was shut down on July 30, 2021, after damaged fuel
rods caused a buildup of radioactive noble gases in the reactor’s primary
circuit. In November, we learned thata fault in the design of the tank
would be the cause of the problem.

It was a whistleblower working in thenuclear industry who informed, on condition of anonymity, the Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (Criirad), which
in turn alerted the Authority. Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) by post. And
the shutdown of the plant was ordered “because of the presence of
numerous and dangerous debris in the water of the primary circuit bathing
the heart of the reactor”.

Questioned this Wednesday on this subject, the
Deputy Director General of the Nuclear Safety Authority, Julien Collet,
replied: “ASN has asked EDF to take account of experience feedback from
this event at EPR Taishan 1 prior to the commissioning of the Flamanville
EPR reactor. EDF will either have to demonstrate that the Flamanville EPR
is not concerned, or propose measures to prevent fuel degradation.

 JHServers 20th Jan 2022

 https://jhservers.com/nuclear-is-the-flamanville-epr-vessel-poorly-designed/

January 24, 2022 Posted by | France, technology | Leave a comment

EDF’s costly EPR nuclear reactor failures – in France, UK, China

 Emmanuel Macron hammers EDF as Britain’s nuclear energy future hangs in
the balance. The energy giant is our last hope in the push for big new
reactors. But the French president has handed it an almighty financial
headache.

Macron ordered the company to sell more electricity at knock-down
prices to its competitors, in order to keep a lid on soaring energy bills.
For Macron, it makes complete political sense. Three months out from an
election, he is keen to temper voter anger over energy costs, which, as in
the UK, have been pushed higher by surging gas prices.

EDF is 84 per cent owned by the French state and has to bow to its will — even when the
government’s intervention is “painful and defies good economic
sense”, as newspaper Le Monde put it. EDF calculated that Macron’s
demand would cost it €8.4 billion (£7 billion).

The company had no choice but to scrap its profit guidance for the year and warned investors
that it may need to seek more capital. Shares in EDF, listed in Paris,
plunged. In a leaked memo, chief executive Jean-Bernard Levy claimed that
Macron’s demand was a “real shock”. “It is going to weigh very
heavily on our results,” he added.

Trade union members at EDF have called
for a strike this week in protest at the president’s order.

Macron’sedict could not have come at a worse time for EDF, which was already facing
huge demands on its capital. On the same day that Kwarteng toured Hinkley,
the company cut its expected output of nuclear power this year by 8 per
cent, after warning that five faulty reactors in France would have to stay
offline while being serviced for longer than expected. This pushed the
total number of EDF reactors currently offline to nine.

EDF is midway through a long, slow upgrade of France’s fleet of 56 ageing nuclear
reactors; this project could cost it at least €50 billion. And, earlier
this month, it pushed back the start date and nudged up the expected cost
for its new reactor at Flamanville in France; the project’s cost has
quadrupled from initial estimates in 2004.

Flamanville’s overruns havetheir parallels at Hinkley Point, which is also years late and over budget.
It uses the same type of European pressurised water reactor (EPR) as
Hinkley, too. Other EPRs designed by EDF have run into problems: the
much-delayed Olkiluoto nuclear power plant in Finland is now finally
looking to start up this year; and Taishan — in Guangdong province in
China — has been offline since July because of a fault.

Taishan was supposed to be EDF’s “proof of principle for the EPR design”, said
Paul Dorfman, associate fellow in the science policy research unit at
Sussex University. “But that has not been the case. To shut down the
reactor is hugely expensive in terms of power, reputation, and in potential
safety … The EPR reactor has failed miserably in terms of cost overruns
everywhere that it’s been built.”

EDF remains confident that Hinkley
will be completed by 2026. Five and a half years into construction, it is
now at the halfway point. When operational, it will supply 7 per cent of
the UK’s electricity. About half of the £23 billion earmarked for
Hinkley has already been spent, and the remainder is expected to come from
EDF’s €27.5 billion cash pile. Hinkley, in other words, should be
completed despite the company’s travails. The outlook for EDF’s
Sizewell B in Suffolk, the next big nuclear project in the queue, is less
clear.

 Times 23rd Jan 2022

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/emmanuel-macron-hits-nuclear-button-edf-hinkley-point-cpcvtccn3

January 24, 2022 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

France’s Nuclear Safety Authority considers abandoning the reprocessing of nuclear waste.

ASN is considering abandoning the reprocessing of nuclear waste,  https://reporterre.net/L-ASN-envisage-l-abandon-du-retraitement-des-dechets-nucleaires The director of the Nuclear Safety Authority ( ASN ) described on January 19 the “ fragilities of the fuel cycle and the nuclear fleet ”. It opened up the possibility of eventually stopping the reprocessing of spent fuel, a particularity of French industry.

For the first time, to the knowledge of Reporterre , a nuclear manager in France is openly considering the end of the reprocessing of spent fuel at La Hague (Manche). On Wednesday January 19, during his back-to-school video press conference, Bernard Doroszczuk, Director of the Nuclear Safety Authority ( ASN ), said that this option had to be considered: ” It will be necessary either to provide for the renovation of the installations current if reprocessing is continued ; or anticipate the implementation of alternative solutions for the management of spent fuel, which should be available by 2040, if reprocessing is stopped. »

For the first time, to the knowledge of Reporterre , a nuclear manager in France is openly considering the end of the reprocessing of spent fuel at La Hague (Manche). On Wednesday January 19, during his back-to-school video press conference, Bernard Doroszczuk, Director of the Nuclear Safety Authority ( ASN ), said that this option had to be considered: ” It will be necessary either to provide for the renovation of the installations current if reprocessing is continued ; or anticipate the implementation of alternative solutions for the management of spent fuel, which should be available by 2040, if reprocessing is stopped. »

 spent fuel, it has a whole series. Each poses a difficult management problem: plutonium (we can’t manage to use all the stock), minor actinides, reprocessed uranium, spent Mox, etc. By evoking the end of reprocessing, Mr. Doroszczuk therefore attacks a sacred cow of French nuclearists.
Why this new proposal  ? Because, explained the director of the ASN , ”  a series of events weakens the entire chain of the fuel cycle  ” and several of its links are clogged:


• the pool at the La Hague plant (Manche), in which the spent fuel is currently stored, is reaching saturation  point ;


• Orano’s Melox plant, in which part of the plutonium is recycled to make fuel, says Mox, works very poorly: “  We have too many breakdowns. Last year, we produced between 50 and 60 tonnes while the order book shows 120 tonnes per year ,  ” Régis Faure, spokesperson for the Orano Melox site , told Usine Nouvelle . Thus, the plutonium accumulates at the entrance, while at the exit, explained Mr. Doroszczuk, ”  these problems that Orano has not mastered lead to the disposal of waste that contains more plutonium than expected.  »  ;

• finally, revealed the director of the ASN , “  the faster-than-expected corrosion of the evaporators at the Orano La Hague plant weakens the reprocessing capacities  ” .

It therefore recommends anticipating the crisis, and either choosing to continue the reprocessing or to stop it. In both cases, this will involve very substantial investments, which we must think about now.

“  A nuclear accident is always possible  ”

More generally, the ASN director underlined “  the absolute need to maintain margins so that there is no competition between production needs and safety decisions  ” . Indeed, the nuclear situation is very tense, both currently, with ten reactors shut down, and in the future: it is not at all certain that the reactors will be able to operate beyond fifty years, indicated Mr Doroszczuk. And the sector lacks skills, both to manage the current fleet and its future dismantling and waste management: it would be necessary to “  train 4,000 engineers per year  ” . We are far from it.The director of the ASN of course wants to stay out of the political debate. But it is clear that the “  messages  ” he formulated on January 19 should be carefully listened to and understood by all presidential candidates who believe that nuclear power is the magic answer to climate change. He also repeated throughout his speech the requirement of security. ”  A nuclear accident is always possible ,  ” he said.

January 24, 2022 Posted by | France, Reference, technology | Leave a comment

13 wards in Cumbria recommended against their will, for UK’s nuclear waste dump

This week our readers got talking about Allerdale potentially being the
host to an underground disposal of nuclear waste.

Having a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) that would store higher level radioactive waste
underground is hailed to be the safest and most secure method of disposal.
The Allerdale GDF Working Group recommended a Search Area for consideration
in 2021 comprised of 13 electoral wards: Aspatria; Broughton St Bridgets;
Dalton; Ellen & Gilcrux; Flimby; Harrington & Salterbeck; Maryport North;
Maryport South; Moorclose & Moss Bay; Seaton & Northside; St John’s; St
Michael’s and Stainburn & Clifton.

Cumbrian Lad added: “It is a very
strange process which allows one individual, Andy Ross of GenR8 North, to
volunteer the part of Allerdale in which he doesn’t live to be the burial
site for the UK’s nuclear waste. The 13 wards who have been volunteered
against their will, have no say in the matter until 15-20 years of
investigations have taken place.”

 Carlisle News and Star 23rd Jan 2022

 https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19865839.nuclear-waste-disposal-allerdale-readers-talking/

January 24, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

The production, servicing and berthing of nuclear-powered submarines in or near population centres present unacceptable health risks.

Following revelations in freedom of information requests to Declassified UK records show 97,430 stable iodine tablets were pre-issued to people in Plymouth, Portland and Barrow-in-Furness from 2016-21 to protect them from radiation.

Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), said: “The production, servicing and berthing of nuclear-powered submarines in or near population centres present unacceptable health risks.

“Safeguarding our communities cannot be achieved through limited distribution of pills,” she said, adding that the vessels, some of which carry nuclear warheads, “need to be disarmed and decommissioned.” As Tim Deere-Jones has pointed out “I’m amazed at the way Governments and Regulators allow the “nuclear authorities” to mainstream on publicly highlighting the dangers of one or two radionuclides such as Iodine and Caesium and discuss them endlessly while avoiding the additional issues of the other 50/60 + nuclides that would be released by a meltdown or a LOCA or any other significant event.”

 Radiation Free Lakeland 22nd Jan 2022

Tablets for Radioactive Iodine? Yes But What About ALL the Other 60 Nuclides Released from Submarine Nuclear Accident??

January 24, 2022 Posted by | safety, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Electricite de France has become a nightmare for investors, and a danger to regional energy security.

The long decline of Electricite de France SA isn’t only a political
crisis for the government in Paris, it’s a growing economic threat for
much of Europe

The giant nuclear operator, once a source of national pride
and reliable low-cost electricity, has become a nightmare for investors and
an increasingly wobbly pillar of regional energy security.

Technical problems at some of its largest reactors mean EDF is set to produce the
smallest amount of atomic power in three decades, slashing France’s
exports to neighboring countries. It’s a one-two punch for a region
that’s already reeling from record natural gas prices, and shows little
sign of abating.

Instead of helping EDF deal with its problems, the French
government is extracting billions of dollars from the company to shield
households from high energy costs. “The generic issue with EDF’s
reactors is leading to an unprecedented decline in production, which starts
being worrying,” said Nicolas Goldberg, a senior manager in charge of
energy at Colombus Consulting in Paris. “We’re going to have high
prices on the European market for a while. Everybody’s going to pay
more.”

 Bloomberg 23rd Jan 2022

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/french-nuclear-giant-s-fall-risks-energy-security-for-all-europe-1.1711929

January 24, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

Design flaws in Flamanville EPR nuclear reactor vessel, and attempts to solve this

The EPR reactor vessel is not designed like the previous vessels, and the
water does not follow the flow movements observed on conventional reactors.
EDF engineers therefore had a piece of metal (deflector) installed in each
tank bottom to redirect the water correctly. But that would be
insufficient.

What solutions? The most logical solution would therefore be
to change this deflector “with the key to a work of development as
complex as ruinous, notes the weekly. And no one is sure, given the limited
space available in an EPR tank, that this repair is technically
possible”.

The other solution envisaged would therefore be to “reinforce
the fuel assemblies, reinforce the protective grids so that the blades
resist the flows”, mentioned Julien Collet.

EDF will present its plan to us
in February, so we can see if their proposals can solve the problem.
Another possibility mentioned at the end of the article: “To limit the
pressures of the water, it would be a question of running the EPR at only
60% of its power, Flamanville would then go from a capacity of 1,650
megawatts less than 1,000 and would end up, for a record bill of 13 billion
euros, less efficient than the reactors built 50 years ago.”

 La Presse de la Manche 20th Jan 2022

https://actu.fr/normandie/flamanville_50184/nucleaire-la-cuve-de-l-epr-de-flamanville-est-elle-mal-concue_48067014.html

January 24, 2022 Posted by | France, Reference, safety | Leave a comment

Row over plans to reform groups at nuclear sites.

Rob Edwards The Ferret, January 23, 2022,

  New guidelines which campaigners say could benefit communities around nuclear sites have been boycotted by a UK Government nuclear agency.

Internal documents seen by The Ferret reveal that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has rejected proposed reforms because they had caused “a great deal of bad feeling”

Guidelines aimed at making local meetings about safety at nuclear sites across the UK more transparent, accountable and representative were put forward in a nuclear industry report. 

There are 29 licensed nuclear sites around the UK, six of them in Scotland. They include nuclear power stations operating and being decommissioned, nuclear submarine bases, waste and processing plants.

All of the sites have stakeholder or local liaison groups aimed at keeping local communities informed about events, including shutdowns, safety incidents and radiation leaks. But they differ greatly in how they are run…………………………..

In 2017 the 50-strong group of nuclear-free local authorities in the UK published a report questioning whether the stakeholder and local liaison groups were “fit for purpose”. It concluded that there was an “urgent need” to reform them.

This prompted the nuclear industry’s Safety Directors’ Forum, which brings together senior managers from all the civil and military nuclear sites, to commission a report. It was researched and written by the industry’s industry’s Young Nuclear Professionals’ Forum.

The resulting “Good Practice Guide” was circulated in November 2021. “Nuclear sites often have a reputation of being opaque, secretive and unwilling to engage with the public,” it said.

“This negative reputation is actively damaging, from open opposition to the site’s existence to a general lack of understanding. Active engagement is key to undoing this, the nuclear industry must be open and honest.”

The report argued that local liaison groups at several unidentified nuclear sites had “no accountability”. This included “no terms of reference being in place, no clear action management process, inadequate minute taking and infrequent meetings.”

It pointed out that while some meetings were open to the public, others were not. Some groups only invited “selected stakeholders” and “diversity and inclusion is not always encouraged”. 

Some of the groups didn’t have websites. “Meetings are not always accessible and, in some cases, not comprehensible due to the extensive use of acronyms, particularly for those who do not work in the nuclear industry,” the report added. 

The report recommended that the groups should all have websites, clear and published constitutions and a “diverse range of stakeholders”. There should be a co-chair independent of the industry and members of the public should be allowed to ask questions.

 correspondence released under freedom of information law has disclosed how the report has upset the NDA and some of the existing groups…………………………………  https://theferret.scot/nuclear-sites-reforms-row/

January 24, 2022 Posted by | politics, safety, UK | Leave a comment

Just a reminder. Russia did not INVADE Crimea.

Bruce Gagnon, 21 Jan 22, Russia did not invade Crimea. They had a long-term lease with Ukraine that allowed over 20,000 military personnel at the Russian navy and air bases there.
The Russian-ethnic people of Crimea self-organized a referendum and voted 96% to seek to rejoin Russia. They saw the 2014 Nazi-led take over in Kiev during the US orchestrated coup and wanted nothing to do with the ‘new Ukraine’ regime.
See this excellent film produced by Oliver Stone https://vimeo.com/252426896?ref=fb-share

January 22, 2022 Posted by | politics international, Reference, Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy too costly for humans — and the planet 

But this [France’s small nuclear reactor] plan has a whole range of shortcomings, not least because reaching the same capacity as a single large nuclear reactor requires a great deal of these small reactors.

This high number will increase the risk of a nuclear accident many time over,” the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) recently warned

“Without civilian nuclear power, there is no military nuclear power, and without military nuclear power, there is no civilian nuclear power,” Macron said.

Nuclear energy too costly for humans — and the planet   https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-nuclear-energy-too-costly-for-humans-and-the-planet/a-60390384 21 Jan 22

Nuclear power will soon be classified as environmentally friendly under the new EU taxonomy. But nothing about it is green or safe, says DW’s Jeannette Cwienk.

I can still clearly recall that spring afternoon in late April 1986. I had been out playing in the woods and building a fort with some friends, when a rain shower forced us back home. It was a fun, carefree day.

We had no idea that just hours earlier, reactor number 4 at the Chernobyl power plant near the Ukrainian city of Pripyat had exploded.

When the news came out days later, the Chernobyl catastrophe and fears of a radiation-filled future quickly came to define my younger years.

Such memories, however, are not the only reason for my concern about the European Commission’s proposal to include nuclear energy and natural gas as environmentally-friendly technology in the EU taxonomy.

Doing so would see nuclear energy classified as sustainable, and recommend it as an option for investors — making a mockery of environmental efforts.

Who will pay for nuclear accidents?

The EU Commission is completely ignoring the costs of nuclear energy. Quite apart from the funds required to build new nuclear power plants, even smaller ones, there is the far more important and apparently overlooked question of who would foot the bill in the event of an accident.

.

In Germany alone, the federal costs attached to the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe have been estimated at around €1 billion ($1.1 billion). Worldwide, the immediate economic ramifications of Chernobyl are estimated to have been more than €200 billion — and that doesn’t include the cost of widespread related illness. 

Health costs were also not included in the €177-billion bill linked to the consequences of the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, as estimated by the Japanese government in 2017.

Most of these costs have since been covered by Japanese taxpayers, because the operating company, TEPCO, was de facto nationalized after the disaster to avoid insolvency.

Taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill

And this brings us to the heart of the problem: in Europe, the amounts that nuclear operators are required to set aside in case they’re found liable for a nuclear accident are laughably small. In the Czech Republic, nuclear power plant operators are required to have €74 million on hand in case of an accident; in Hungary, the figure is €127 million.

Even in France, the driving force for the planned “greening” of European nuclear energy and the largest consumer of nuclear energy worldwide — it makes up around 70% of its energy supply — operators are only required to set aside €700 million in case of an accident. A large nuclear accident in Europe could easily cost between €100 and 430 billion. And should that happen, the affected countries — along with their taxpayers — will be forced to foot the bill.

This situation has been met with criticism by Germany’s new finance minister and the leader of the neoliberal Free Democrat Party, Christian Lindner, who recently expressed skepticism about the place of nuclear energy in the new EU taxonomy.

“An energy source that can only be mainstream if the state is prepared to accept liability — that’s a sign from the market that it can’t be a sustainable energy source,” he said.

On Friday, the German government is likely to vote against the EU Commission’s plans — and rightly so. Austria and Luxembourg, on the other hand, have gone a courageous step further and have announced plans to take Brussels to court if the disputed sustainability plans go ahead.

Small modular reactors also a risk

In France, meanwhile, President Emmanuel Macron likes to describe nuclear power as a “stroke of luck” for climate protection. The fact that 10 of the country’s reactors are currently offline — three from the latest generation due to safety concerns — are apparently not an issue for the French government, which has been trying to allay the fears of a nuclear accident with new small modular reactors (SMR). These smaller power stations are only around one 10th of the size of a conventional nuclear site — and therefore are considered less dangerous, in the event of an accident.

But this plan has a whole range of shortcomings, not least because reaching the same capacity as a single large nuclear reactor requires a great deal of these small reactors.

“This high number will increase the risk of a nuclear accident many time over,” the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) recently warned.

Is it really about climate protection?

BASE has also been critical of a report by the EU’s Joint Research Center, which the EU Commission has used to make its assessment about the environmental friendliness of civil nuclear power.

The EU report only partially considers the risks of nuclear energy use for humans and the environment, as well as for future generations, and some of the principles of scientific work are not correctly taken into account. According to BASE, the report cannot be relied on to comprehensively assess the sustainability of nuclear energy use.

This has raised doubts over the claim that Brussels wants to include nuclear power in the new EU taxonomy primarily for climate protection reasons. Instead, the decision seems to be down to political pressure, especially from Paris.

As a global nuclear power, France wants to hold on to its nuclear plants at all costs, as Macron clearly stated in December.

“Without civilian nuclear power, there is no military nuclear power, and without military nuclear power, there is no civilian nuclear power,” he said.

January 22, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Small nuclear reactors a poor solution for UK’s and the world’s climate action.

it is difficult to see how a technology that will only be operational after the UK power system is supposed to be carbon-free will contribute to climate action in the next ten years or so. And the situation is similar globally.

Other questions around traditional nuclear power stations, such as the thorny issue of waste, would also still apply to SMRs…….

Is nuclear power the best solution to climate change? The UK, like China, the US and Canada, is attracted to nuclear power. But high costs and slow delivery means many energy experts remain unconvinced. New Statesman, By Philippa Nuttall 21 Jan 22,  debate in the House of Commons on 19 January, led by a group of MPs known as the “atomic kittens”, suggested nuclear energy can be a panacea for all ills – including a solution for the climate crisis and the gas crunch. The facts suggest otherwise.

Isn’t nuclear energy a no-no after Chernobyl and Fukushima?

Disasters clearly reduce appetite among the public and policymakers for nuclear power………………

Today, new nuclear construction projects are few and far between, even in countries such as France and the US whose energy systems are heavily reliant on the technology, and the number of operational reactors is in decline globally.

Are any countries investing heavily in nuclear?

In addition to safety concerns, rising costs are a central reason why the number of new plants under construction remains limited. Since 2011, nuclear power construction costs globally have doubled or even tripled. China is, however, notable in its nuclear ambitions. The country is planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35, though cost could ultimately change this direction of travel.

The price of nuclear generation has moved in the opposite direction to solar and wind

Mean levelised cost of energy in US$/MWh, 2009–20………..

Others countries such as the UK, the US and Canada also see a limited role for new nuclear as part of their response to climate change. The UK government in its 2021 net zero strategy talked about “cutting edge new nuclear power stations”, and plans to launch a £120m Future Nuclear Enabling Fund.

There are some big nuclear power stations on the cards – think Hinkley Point C or Sizewell C in the UK. But the major excitement among many nuclear enthusiasts, including plenty of UK MPs is around so-called small modular reactors (SMRs). If you believe the hype, they are the answer to all climate and energy ills………………

Rolls Royce, and companies working on the technology in other countries, argue that smaller solutions can be constructed more cheaply and come online more quickly as they can be built in a factory, transported in modules and fitted together “like meccano”, said Rolls Royce’s Alastair Evans. Large nuclear plants are built fully onsite. The idea is that the modules could then be mass produced. However, nothing is rolling off any conveyor belts yet. The only SMR up and running in the world is a 35 MW floating nuclear plant in Russia.

Sounds interesting. Are SMRs the solution to the climate crisis?

Unlikely.

“To meet the requirements of the sixth carbon budget, we will need all new cars, vans and replacement boilers to be zero carbon in operation by the early 2030s,” Virginia Crosbie, a Conservative MP from Wales and the original self-proclaimed “atomic kitten”, enthused to fellow MPs. “We must quickly move away from generating that electricity from fossil fuels… Nuclear power, which has been a neglected part of our energy mix, can bridge the gap.”

There is, however, no silver bullet to the climate crisis, and renewables, in conjunction with other existing technologies, look like a better, cheaper solution.

……….. traditional, big nuclear projects look likely to provide only a sliver of the world’s electricity in the future. They are hugely expensive to build, their construction runs over time, and they are frequently struck by technological issues. Moreover, they need to be built close to the sea or a large river for cooling reasons, highlighted Paul Dorfman from the University of Sussex. France has already had to curtail nuclear power output in periods of heatwaves and drought, which are only set to get worse as climate change takes hold. Greater storm surges and eroding coastlines also don’t make the prospect of building by the sea any easier.

SMRs solve few of these issues………… “The latest economic estimates available for SMRs are still quite expensive relative to other ‘clean’ energy alternatives, and it would be pure speculation to assume that will change dramatically until the concept has been more proven,” said Mike Hogan from the not-for-profit Regulatory Assistance Project.

……. the designs still need to get licensed, factories need to be built, orders placed, projects financed, etc,” said Hogan.

In short, it is difficult to see how a technology that will only be operational after the UK power system is supposed to be carbon-free will contribute to climate action in the next ten years or so. And the situation is similar globally.

Other questions around traditional nuclear power stations, such as the thorny issue of waste, would also still apply to SMRs…….

So what is the solution? Renewables, renewables and more renewables?

In short, yes. The costs of solar, wind power and storage continue to fall, and by 2026 global renewable electricity capacity is forecast to rise by more than 60 per cent, to a level that would equal the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined, says the IEA.

Some argue nuclear can be a clean back-up option for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun isn’t shining. But again, other options already exist, including demand response (for example, plugging in your electric car when there is lots of energy and not switching on your washing machine when the system is under strain), large-scale storage and interconnections between different countries.  

Final word?

Craig Bennett, chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, summed up the general mood of those less enthused by nuclear than Crosbie and her fans:

“If successive governments had given even half the love and attention they afford to nuclear power to scaling up home insulation, energy efficiency and smart storage technologies, it’s likely we wouldn’t be facing current challenges around energy and household bills, and we would have done a lot more good for the climate and nature.”…..   https://www.newstatesman.com/environment/climate/2022/01/is-nuclear-power-a-genuine-solution-to-the-climate-crisis

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »