nuclear-news

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

Nuclear is Not Green – campaigners from Suffolk travel to COP26

Campaigners from Suffolk have travelled to COP26 host city Glasgow to
protest over Sizewell C, which they say is not the solution to the climate
emergency. Stop Sizewell C, two Suffolk Coastal 2019 General Election
candidates and local supporters unfurled a “Nuclear is Not Green” banner in
the centre of the city.

 East Anglian Daily Times 2nd Nov 2021

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/stop-sizewell-c-protest-at-cop26-in-glasgow-8458020

November 4, 2021 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

USA and UK’s transparent persecution of Australian Julian Assange

The goal is to set a legal precedent which allows journalists who expose the crimes of the powerful to be persecuted not covertly as is normally done in ‘free democracies,’ but right out in the open. To tell journalists “We’ll just throw you in prison if you cross us.

What makes this precedent uniquely dangerous is that it is not just threatening to imprison American journalists who expose US crimes, but any journalist anywhere in the world.

Caitlin Johnstone: The Assange persecution lays out Western savagery at its most transparent  https://www.rt.com/op-ed/538713-us-appeal-of-the-julian-assange/28 Oct, 2021  By Caitlin Johnstone, an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on Twitter @caitozThe first day of the US appeal in the Julian Assange extradition case saw grown adults arguing in court that the US government could guarantee that it wouldn’t treat the WikiLeaks founder as cruelly as it treats other prisoners.

I wish I was kidding.

In their write-up on Wednesday’s proceedings, The Dissenter’s Kevin Gosztola and Mohamed Elmaazi report that the prosecution argued that “the High Court should accept the appeal on the basis that the U.S. government offered ‘assurances’ that Assange won’t be subjected to Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) or incarcerated in ADX Florence, a super-maximum prison in Colorado.”

What this means is that in order to overturn the January extradition ruling which judge Vanessa Baraitser denied on the basis that the notoriously draconian US prison system is too cruel to guarantee Assange’s health and safety, the prosecution has established as one of their grounds for appeal the claim that they can offer “assurances” that they would not inflict some of their most brutal measures upon him. These would include the aforementioned Special Administrative Measures, wherein prisoners are so isolated that they effectively disappear off the face of the earth, or sending him to ADX Florence, where all prisoners are kept in solitary confinement 23 hours a day.

What’s ridiculous about these “assurances,” apart from the obvious, is that within its own legal argument the US government reserves the right to reverse those assurances at any time and impose SAMs or maximum security imprisonment upon Assange if it deems them necessary. As Amnesty International explains:

They say: we guarantee that he won’t be held in a maximum security facility and he will not be subjected to Special Administrative Measures and he will get healthcare. But if he does something that we don’t like, we reserve the right to not guarantee him, we reserve the right to put him in a maximum security facility, we reserve the right to offer him Special Administrative Measures. Those are not assurances at all. It is not that difficult to look at those assurances and say: these are inherently unreliable, it promises to do something and then reserves the right to break the promise.

So the prosecution’s legal argument here is essentially “We promise we won’t treat Assange as cruelly as we treat our other prisoners, unless we decide we really want to.”

This is not just a reflection on the weakness of the extradition appeal, it’s a reflection on the savagery of all the so-called free democracies that have involved themselves in this case.

This same prosecution argued that Assange should not be denied US extradition from the UK on humanitarian grounds as in the case of activist Lauri Love, because Love suffered from both physical and psychological ailments while Assange’s ailments are only psychological. They stood before the court and made this argument even as Assange was visibly pained and unwell in his video appearance from Belmarsh Prison, which he was only able to attend intermittently due to his frail condition.

“For my newspaper, I have worked as media partner of WikiLeaks since 2009,” tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi who attended the hearing via video link. “I have seen Julian Assange in all sorts of situations, but I have never ever seen him so unwell and so dangerously thin.”

So they’re just openly brutalizing a journalist for exposing US war crimes, while arguing that they can be trusted to treat him humanely and give him a fair trial if granted extradition. This after it has already been confirmed that the CIA plotted to kidnap and assassinate him during the Trump administration, after we learned that the prosecution relied on false testimony from a convicted child molester and diagnosed sociopath, after it was revealed that the CIA spied on Assange and his lawyers in the Ecuadorian embassy, and after intelligence asset Jeffrey Epstein famously died under highly suspicious circumstances in a US prison cell.

The worst atrocities in history have all been legal. All the worst examples of genocide, slavery, tyranny and bloodshed have been allowed or actively facilitated by the state. The persecution of Assange is geared toward entering the imprisonment of journalists into this category.

The goal is to set a legal precedent which allows journalists who expose the crimes of the powerful to be persecuted not covertly as is normally done in ‘free democracies,’ but right out in the open. To tell journalists “We’ll just throw you in prison if you cross us.”

What makes this precedent uniquely dangerous is that it is not just threatening to imprison American journalists who expose US crimes, but any journalist anywhere in the world. This is an Australian journalist in the process of being extradited from the UK for publishing facts about US war crimes in the nations it has invaded. The aim is to set up a system where anyone in the US-aligned world can be funneled into its prison system for publishing inconvenient facts.

This is the savagery of the Western world at its most transparent. It’s not the greatest evil the US-centralized empire has perpetrated; that distinction would certainly be reserved for its acts of mass military slaughter that it has been inflicting upon our species with impunity for generations. But it’s the most brazen. The most overt. It’s the most powerful part of the most depraved power structure on earth looking us all right in the eyes and telling us exactly what it is.

And if we can really look at this beast and what it is doing right now, really see it with eyes wide open, it reveals far more about those who rule over us than anything any journalist has ever exposed.

November 2, 2021 Posted by | civil liberties, Legal, UK | Leave a comment

New Study: Electricity would already be Cheaper today with a Full Supplyof 100% Renewables. 

 New Study: Electricity would already be Cheaper today with a Full Supply
of 100% Renewables. New short study by the Energy Watch Group (EWG) finds:
Electricity would already be cheaper today with a full supply of 100%
renewables.

In the coalition negotiations for the new German government,
both ambitious climate protection and the reduction of electricity prices
play a central role. The previous government still expects only 45%
renewables in the electricity mix by 2025.

A new short study by the Energy
Watch Group offers an answer to the rising energy costs: The study
calculates that a full supply with 100% renewables would already be
economically competitive today compared to the current energy system based
on coal, natural gas and nuclear. By 2025 at the latest, an energy system
based on 100% renewables would then be significantly cheaper than power
generation with fossil fuels.

 Sonnenseite 28th Oct 2021

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Germany, renewable | Leave a comment

Portugal’s success in cutting greenhouse emissions through its offshore floating wind and solar plants

 Portugal is the EU country that has been most successful at cutting
greenhouse gas emissions since 2005, partly through the use of floating
wind and solar plants located off its coast. Today, 65 percent of all the
electricity consumed in Portugal comes from renewable sources.

 France24 30th Oct 2021

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20211030-portugal-s-floating-power-plants-are-on-the-cutting-edge-of-renewable-technologyMac1

November 2, 2021 Posted by | EUROPE, renewable | Leave a comment

Greenpeace is set for a confrontation with security officials at COP26

 Greenpeace is set for a confrontation with security officials at COP26
after revealing plans to dock a ship outside the venue without permission.
The climate group’s Rainbow Warrior yacht set sail from Liverpool on
Saturday night, seeking to sail up the Clyde and dock next to the COP26
venue in Glasgow. Port authorities declined the Rainbow Warrior’s request
to berth, with the area under a tight lockdown as world leaders arrive, but
Greenpeace said that the captain has “decided to ignore the warnings”
and will attempt to dock on Monday morning.

 iNews 31st Oct 2021

https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/cop26-greenpeace-ship-rainbow-warrior-defy-authorities-sail-glasgow-1277364

November 2, 2021 Posted by | climate change, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Megaprojects like Hinkley Point C nuclear are now blamed for shortages of materials for up to 2500 construction firms

HS2 and Hinkley Point blamed for concrete shortages. Megaprojects have
been accused of gobbling up concrete supplies, while steelmakers face a
magnesium drought caused by China. Ian Anfield, managing director of Hudson
Contract, which provides ­services to more than 2,500 construction firms,
said small builders cannot compete for materials with mega-­projects such
as HS2 and Hinkley nuclear power plant.

The British Merchants Federation
(BMF) and the Construction Products Association (CPA) have set up a task
force with the Government and major schemes including HS2 and the Hinkley
nuclear plant to monitor the situation.

 Telegraph 30th Oct 2021

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/30/hs2-hinkley-point-blamed-concrete-shortages/

November 2, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

New UHI research into tiny fragments of radioactivewaste flushed into the sea from Dounreay nuclear power plant 40 years ago.

 New UHI research is to be carried out into tiny fragments of radioactive
waste flushed into the sea from Dounreay nuclear power plant 40 years ago.
Sand-sized particles of irradiated nuclear fuel got into the plant’s
drainage system in the 1960s and 1970s. Work to clean up the particles
began in the 1980s, after fragments were found washed up on the nearby
foreshore. Dounreay’s operator is funding the research by the University
of the Highlands and Islands (UHI). The UHI environmental research
institute in Thurso, near Dounreay, said the research would “explore a
difficult environmental problem”.

 Press & Journal 31st Oct 2021

November 2, 2021 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Mohamed bin Zayed Receives Nazarbayev Prize for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World and Global Security


BY ASSEL SATUBALDINA in INTERNATIONAL on 1 NOVEMBER 2021

NUR-SULTAN – Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces Mohamed bin Zayed received the Nazarbayev Prize for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World and Global Security on Oct. 28 for his contribution to peace, regional stability, and sustainable economic development during the meeting with Former Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev, reports the press service of First President.

The award was established in 2016 with a goal to urge international actors to pursue more vigorous efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons. King Abdullah II of Jordan was the first person to receive the prestigious award back in 2017 during his visit to Kazakhstan. ……….. https://astanatimes.com/2021/11/mohamed-bin-zayed-receives-nazarbayev-prize-for-a-nuclear-weapon-free-world-and-global-security/

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Kazakhstan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A damning new confidential report on France’s future nuclear reactor plans.

 Nuclear. A damning confidential report on future EPRs. It is a real bomb that has just published the information site “Context” about the new generation of nuclear power plants EDF. These EPR2 that Emmanuel Macron is about to order.

“Context” has obtained a confidential report from the government which expresses serious doubts about the design, feasibility, cost and timeframe of what should constitute the new wave of French nuclear
power plants. Bercy and EDF make no comment.

 Ouest France 29th Oct 2021

 https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/nucleaire-un-rapport-confidentiel-accablant-sur-les-futurs-epr-b54a63b8-37d7-11ec-9832-1d0e4716a307

November 1, 2021 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Minister confirms taxpayer will foot bill for UK nuclear power strategy

Minister confirms taxpayer will foot bill for UK nuclear power strategy LBC,  TOM SWARBRICK, 31 October 2021  On the fourth time of asking, the Energy minister admitted energy bills will rise to fund the construction of nuclear plants in the UK.

As COP26 gets underway in Glasgow, Tom Swarbrick was joined by Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth Greg Hands to discuss the UK’s strategy to achieve net zero.

Tom asked Mr Hands about the Regulated Asset Base model for nuclear, which is the government’s plan to build “at least one large-scale nuclear project” by the end of parliament.

How much are bills going to go up to pay for that?” Tom asked for the first time. The Tory MP dodged the question and insisted that the RAB model “increases our level of choices” for energy production in future.

He repeated that the construction of nuclear plants “creates more options for us.”………..

Before it has been built, how much are prices going to go up as a result of this model?” Tom asked for the third time.

The Energy Minister insisted that “depends on the deals that are being done”, adding that energy bills will “be reduced by around £10.”

Can I just try one more time, and it can be a nod or a shake of the head for an answer,” a dejected Tom said.

“Can you guarantee that through this new way of funding nuclear, that bills will not go up prior to it being built?”

“No, we’re expecting that bill-payers will make a contribution based on the Regular Asset Base model” the Minister confirmed on the fourth time of asking.

“It will end up being cheaper overall for bill-payers by in the region of £10” he repeated, clarifying that the saving is “over the lifetime of that power station.” https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/tom-swarbrick/british-taxpayer-will-pay-for-nuclear-energy-program-minister-confirms/

November 1, 2021 Posted by | politics, UK | 5 Comments

France’s failing EDF nuclear company hopes to save itself by marketing small nuclear reactors

France will act as the shop window for exports of the new SMR technology — billed to be less powerful but easier to produce and run than conventional reactors — with EDF expected to begin building its first “Nuward” reactor in nine years


 

France’s nuclear drive offers chance of redemption for EDF
New commitments boost state-controlled utility but path ahead remains uncertain , Anna Gross and Sarah White in Paris    Ft.com, 31 Oct 21, As the French government signals a future where nuclear power will play an integral rolein achieving carbon neutrality for the country by 2050  [ed. that is a spurious claim]  , its state-controlled energy giant EDF remains encumbered by its past. Positioned at the heart of the nuclear debate in France and Europe, EDF struggles under a debt-laden balance sheet and a reputation for being unable to make novel nuclear technologies on time and on budget. But now President Emmanuel Macron has extended an olive branch and seemingly cleared a path for it to expand internationally and attract much-needed investment.  

………..Created in 1946 by General Charles de Gaulle, EDF holds emotional power in France, Europe’s last bastion of nuclear power, and is linked with the nation’s industrial past and future. For years it was unclear if Macron, under pressure to move away from nuclear power towards renewables, would give the green light to new reactors long called for by EDF. Shortly after coming to power, Macron committed to reducing nuclear’s share of France’s electricity production from 75 to 50 per cent by 2035.


  However, ambitious European climate goals, which hinge on pivoting to forms of energy that emit less carbon than fossil fuels, have put the spotlight on nuclear again and handed France an opportunity to assert its dominance in the field.  


  For EDF, thawing state tensions and confirmation of France’s desire for a nuclear future bring increased visibility to ensure it can keep training and hiring the people it will need and attract investment. That will be no small task for a company saddled with €41bn of debt and a colossal maintenance and investment programme to fund. UBS estimates a total investment requirement of more than €100bn for it to secure a 20-year life extension for 80 per cent of its nuclear fleet.  

 If approved, any government subsidies to fund six new reactors — estimated in leaked documents in 2019 to cost around €47bn — and the final price of the nuclear power produced by them, will ultimately be given the green light by Brussels. The cost of this funding could also be influenced by whether or not the EU includes nuclear energy in its taxonomy on “green finance”, making it a more attractive investment prospect. That decision has been delayed indefinitely because of infighting in the EU.  


  “Whether we can get financing at a low rate or super high rates completely changes the final cost. That’s the real subject, behind the gross number,” said Ursat. EDF faces other hurdles too, including the failure to reach a compromise with Brussels over the restructuring of the utility that would have allowed it to raise the regulated price at which it sells nuclear energy and ringfence some of its activities. It also needs to show it can deliver on its next-generation European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) technology, which it is planning to sell to India, Poland and the Czech Republic. 

 
EPR reactors under construction in Europe — including Flamanville in France and Hinkley Point in the UK — are billions over budget and years behind schedule. The company’s previous chief financial officer quit over concerns about strains Hinkley Point was putting on EDF’s balance sheet.  

These setbacks have led some investors and analysts to question EDF’s strategy and growth in the risky and costly field of nuclear power, were it not more than 80 per cent owned by the French government.  

“The new reactor at Flamanville is not up and running yet, and some will want to see that project completed before France commits to more reactors with the same design,” said Sam Arie, an analyst at UBS. “From an investor point of view, is there interest in new nuclear projects? Not really.” However, recent soaring energy prices coupled with stringent climate goals seemed to have turned the tide in EDF’s favour. ……….


 France will act as the shop window for exports of the new SMR technology — billed to be less powerful but easier to produce and run than conventional reactors — with EDF expected to begin building its first “Nuward” reactor in nine years. …….. https://www.ft.com/content/a1c95212-c122-4a29-8952-14a346381b91

November 1, 2021 Posted by | France, marketing, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

The untold story of the world’s biggest nuclear bomb

The Tsar Bomba is dead; long live the Tsar Bomba. As the United States, Russia, and China seem to be engaged in new arms races in several domains, including unusual and new forms of nuclear delivery vehicles, the Tsar Bomba is a potent example of how nationalism, fear, and high-technology can combine in a fashion that is ultimately dangerous, wasteful, and pointless.

The untold story of the world’s biggest nuclear bomb,  Bulletin,  By Alex Wellerstein, October 29, 2021   n the early hours of October 30, 1961, a bomber took off from an airstrip in northern Russia and began its flight through cloudy skies over the frigid Arctic island of Novaya Zemlya. Slung below the plane’s belly was a nuclear bomb the size of a small school bus—the largest and most powerful bomb ever created.

At 11:32 a.m., the bombardier released the weapon. As the bomb fell, an enormous parachute unfurled to slow its descent, giving the pilot time to retreat to a safe distance. A minute or so later, the bomb detonated. A cameraman watching from the island recalled:

A fire-red ball of enormous size rose and grew. It grew larger and larger, and when it reached enormous size, it went up. Behind it, like a funnel, the whole earth seemed to be drawn in. The sight was fantastic, unreal, and the fireball looked like some other planet. It was an unearthly spectacle! [1]

The flash alone lasted more than a minute. The fireball expanded to nearly six miles in diameter—large enough to include the entire urban core of Washington or San Francisco, or all of midtown and downtown Manhattan. Over several minutes it rose and mushroomed into a massive cloud. Within ten minutes, it had reached a height of 42 miles and a diameter of some 60 miles. One civilian witness remarked that it was “as if the Earth was killed.” Decades later, the weapon would be given the name it is most commonly known by today: Tsar Bomba, meaning “emperor bomb.”

Designed to have a maximum explosive yield of 100 million tons (or 100 megatons) of TNT equivalent, the 60,000-pound monster bomb was detonated at only half its strength. Still, at 50 megatons, it was more than 3,300 times as powerful as the atomic bomb that killed at least 70,000 people in Hiroshima, and more than 40 times as powerful as the largest nuclear bomb in the US arsenal today. Its single test represents about one tenth of the total yield of all nuclear weapons ever tested by all nations.[2]

At the time of its detonation, the Tsar Bomba held the world’s attention, largely as an object of infamy, recklessness, and terror. Within two years, though, the Soviet Union and the United States would sign and ratify the Limited Test Ban Treaty, prohibiting atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, and the 50-megaton bomb would fall into relative obscurity.

From the very beginning, the United States sought to minimize the importance of the 50-megaton test, and it became fashionable in both the United States and the former Soviet Union to dismiss it as a political stunt with little technical or strategic importance. But recently declassified files from the Kennedy administration now indicate that the Tsar Bomba was taken far more seriously as a weapon, and possibly as something to emulate, than ever was indicated publicly.

And memoirs from former Soviet weapons workers, only recently available outside Russia, make clear that the gigantic bomb’s place in the history of Soviet thermonuclear weapons may be far more important than has been appreciated. Sixty years after the detonation, it’s now finally possible to piece together a deeper understanding of the creation of the Tsar Bomba and its broader impacts.

The Tsar Bomba is not just a subject for history; some of the same dynamics exist today. It is not just the story of a single weapon that was detonated six decades ago, but a parable about political posturing and technical enablement that applies just as acutely today. In a new era of nuclear weapons and delivery competition, the Tsar Bomba is a potent example of how nationalism, fear, and high-technology can combine in a fashion that is ultimately dangerous, wasteful, and pointless.

From kilotons to megatons to gigatons

…………………….. By the spring of 1951, Edward Teller and Stanislaw Ulam at Los Alamos had developed their design for a workable hydrogen bomb

………………. Only a few months later, in July 1954, Teller made it clear he thought 15 megatons was child’s play. At a secret meeting of the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission, Teller broached, as he put it, “the possibility of much bigger bangs.” At his Livermore laboratory, he reported, they were working on two new weapon designs, dubbed Gnomon and Sundial. Gnomon would be 1,000 megatons and would be used like a “primary” to set off Sundial, which would be 10,000 megatons. Most of Teller’s testimony remains classified to this day, but other scientists at the meeting recorded, after Teller had left, that they were “shocked” by his proposal. “It would contaminate the Earth,” one suggested. Physicist I. I. Rabi, by then an experienced Teller skeptic, suggested it was probably just an “advertising stunt.”[4] But he was wrong; Livermore would for several years continue working on Gnomon, at least, and had even planned to test a prototype for the device in Operation Redwing in 1956 (but the test never took place).[5]

All of which is to say that the idea of making hydrogen bombs in the hundreds-of-megatons yield range was hardly unusual in the late 1950s. If anything, it was tame compared to the gigaton ambitions of one of the H-bomb’s inventors. It is hard to convey the damage of a gigaton bomb, because at such yields many traditional scaling laws do not work (the bomb blows a hole in the atmosphere, essentially). However, a study from 1963 suggested that, if detonated 28 miles (45 kilometers) above the surface of the Earth, a 10,000-megaton weapon could set fires over an area 500 miles (800 kilometers) in diameter. Which is to say, an area about the size of France.[6]………………………….

Planning for a 100-megaton bomb……………

Russian accounts by participants claim Arzamas-16 scientists had been inspired, in part, by speculations about gigantic, gigaton-range bombs in the foreign press in May 1960. The physicist and designer Victor Adamski said that Sakharov and others tried to immediately assess the plausibility of the news reports, and came up with the schema that was ultimately used for the Tsar Bomba…………………

Sakharov was already queasy about the long-term deaths from nuclear fallout, and he wanted to minimize the excess radioactivity produced by the test. In 1958, he had calculated that for every megaton of even “clean” nuclear weapons, there would be some 6,600 premature deaths over the next 8,000 years across the globe, owing to carbon atoms in the atmosphere that would become radioactive under the bomb’s neutron flux.[17………………….

An American Tsar Bomba?

…………………  Even after denouncing the Tsar Bomba as pointless terrorism, there were scientists and military planners working for the US government who were considering nuclear weapons with yields 20 times larger……………….

The Limited Test Ban Treaty

In 1963, the United States stood at a crossroads. Down one path was a new generation of “very high-yield” nuclear weapons with continued atmospheric nuclear testing. Down the other was the possibility of the Limited Test Ban Treaty, which would ban future atmospheric testing, effectively precluding the development of high-yield weapons.

……………….. even while the United States professed to not care about “very high-yield” weapons, it continued to study them well into the Johnson administration. 

…………. the Soviets never broke the Limited Test Ban Treaty, and smaller warheads became the norm. Warheads that could be mounted in multiples and independently targeted on a single missile, or put into submarines, became the core of the arsenal. Large, high-yield weapons would, eventually, be mostly phased out. The dismissal of the uselessness of the Tsar Bomba would become orthodoxy, as even the CIA (eventually) concluded that the Soviets were not going to field such a thing in numbers or try to put superbombs on missiles.

……………..  even if such weapons are now purely relegated to history, we should remember that the decision not to deploy them was not made because the Soviet Union and United States shied away from the shocking megatonnage. It was because massive bombs were harder to use, and something about them symbolized the ridiculousness of the arms race in a way that making thousands of “smaller” weapons (some as big as 20–30 megatons) did not.

The United States did not make 50- to 100-megaton bombs or gigaton bombs, but it made a gigaton arsenal……………. Today it is probably around 2,000 megatons—more than enough to devastate the planet in a full-scale nuclear war.

The Tsar Bomba is dead; long live the Tsar Bomba. As the United States, Russia, and China seem to be engaged in new arms races in several domains, including unusual and new forms of nuclear delivery vehicles, the Tsar Bomba is a potent example of how nationalism, fear, and high-technology can combine in a fashion that is ultimately dangerous, wasteful, and pointless. “Very high-yield” nuclear weapons weren’t necessary for deterrence, and they were explored at the expense of not only other weapons systems, but also the multitude of other things that nations could spend their wealth and resources on. They didn’t bring safety or security. https://thebulletin.org/2021/10/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-biggest-nuclear-bomb/

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK’s new nuclear financing plan is a nightmare

Tax-and-spend budgets can be dispiriting. But at least Kwasi Kwarteng
squirrelled out a “£30 billion” consumer windfall this week.
Apparently, we’re going to be that much better off on “each new
large-scale” nuclear power plant he’s planning for Blighty.

And all
thanks to “a new funding model” — the regulated asset base, or RAB.
Where the business secretary has plucked his figure from is not exactly
clear. But it’s all part of his conversion to a new nuclear nirvana —
one all the more crucial, too, “in light of rising global gas prices”.


Yes, it’s debatable whether gas prices will still be on the up in, say,
2035 when a new Kwasi nuke might actually be built. But who cares about
that? Buried in the budget was the news ministers have set aside “£1.7
billion to enable a final investment decision” this parliament on a new
reactor (who else spends that sort of sum making a decision?) and is in
talks with EDF over Sizewell C in Suffolk.

On top, Kwarteng has dusted off
Wylfa on Anglesey, the project Hitachi spent four years trying to fire up
before jacking it in and writing off £2.1 billion. Apart from the
decade-long delays in getting built, construction cost overruns are
nuclear’s forte: France’s Flamanville, up from the initial €3.3
billion to €19.1 billion; Finland’s Olkiluoto, up from €3 billion to
€11 billion; and our very own Hinkley Point C, up from £18 billion to
£23 billion.

Kwarteng knows all that. But he’s calculated that the RAB
model, where consumers “contribute to the cost of new nuclear power
projects during the construction phase”, can not only attract private
investors but also allow lower electricity prices in the long run: his
so-called “£30 billion” saving.

For him, it beats the
“contracts-for-difference” template of Hinkley Point C. Both models are
deeply flawed. But the RAB is worse. First, because developers, and their
backers, have no incentive to keep costs down. Sure, there’d be an
independent regulator to rule on cost overruns.

But with investors making
their return on the size of the RAB, the more cost they can get past the
regulator, the better. And, second, because if the project keels over,
consumers are still left with the bill. “Nukegate” in America is proof
of that: two reactors in South Carolina built by Westinghouse that blew up
the company after costs ballooned from $9.8 billion to $25 billion. The
plants were never completed: a scandal leading to criminal lawsuits. But
consumers are still paying for the nukes: billions of dollars of costs,
making up 18 per cent of their electricity bills.

Guess what, too? Fresh
from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it’s Westinghouse that Kwarteng fancies for
another go at Wylfa.

 Times 30th Oct 2021

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-nuclear-plan-is-a-nightmare-63schq6ks

R

November 1, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

EU countries ramp up pressure to grant nuclear a ‘green’ investment label

EU countries ramp up pressure to grant nuclear a ‘green’ investment label,  By Kira Taylor | EURACTIV.com, 29 Oct 21,

A group of ten European countries have heaped pressure on the European Commission to grant nuclear energy a ‘green’ label under the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy, which acts as a guide to climate-friendly investments.

Energy ministers from the group of ten supported nuclear’s inclusion in the taxonomy during an extraordinary meeting of the EU’s Energy Council on Tuesday (26 October), convened hastily last week in response to rising energy prices.

A proposal from the European Commission is now expected “by the end of the year,” said Kadri Simson, the EU’s energy commissioner………


Earlier this month
, a group of ministers from ten EU countries signed a joint opinion article saying “nuclear power must be part of the solution” to the climate crisis and included in the taxonomy.

The article was signed by the economy and energy ministers from Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, France, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

At this week’s ministerial meeting, the Netherlands offered their support while Sweden also spoke favourably about nuclear………..

Anti-nuclear lobby

By far the smallest group of countries in this debate is those who have spoken out against the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy. Austria and Luxembourg are the most vocal countries here, with Denmark also cautioning against nuclear.

“We think that it would be wrong to raise nuclear energy as the alternative – it’s not cheap and it’s not secure. The prices for the production of nuclear energy are much higher than that for photovoltaic solar production,” said Gregor Schusterschitz from Austria.

Meanwhile, Luxembourg’s energy minister, Claude Turmes, highlighted the length of time it would take to build new nuclear power plants, saying these would not come online until around 2035, making them useless as a solution to this year’s energy crisis.

He added that “extending nuclear reactors beyond 40 years only represents 10 billion tonnes oil equivalent, so you can see it’s a highly risky, low impact strategy”.

“With taxonomy, I think we have to be extremely cautious. Because look at the financial markets, look at the investors, look at what’s happening already with manipulation,” he told ministers.

Germany – a long-standing opponent of nuclear power – was much more neutral at the meeting, perhaps owing to its yet-to-be-formed government.

“We need to decrease our energy dependency – people are seeing this as a reason for nuclear power. Obviously we can’t achieve consensus at an EU level on the role of nuclear power,” said Andreas Feicht, German energy and economy minister.

The environmental NGO WWF has also warned against including nuclear energy and fossil gas.

“Nothing would do more to undermine the European Green Deal than to include fossil gas and nuclear in the green taxonomy. At the time of the COP26 summit, institutionalised European greenwashing of this sort would send a totally counterproductive global signal,” said Henry Eviston, spokesperson on sustainable finance for WWF European Policy Office………

At some point, the Commission will have to side with either the pro- or anti-nuclear camp. Ministers at the meeting called on the European Commission to publish the delegated act as soon as possible and the executive is beginning to run out of road to kick the can down. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/eu-countries-ramp-up-pressure-to-grant-nuclear-a-green-investment-label/

October 30, 2021 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

UK public kept in the dark on household costs in paying for nuclear reactors before they’re built

it is somewhat dubious to replace a very expensive form of subsidy with one that promises to be merely expensive — and then claim that you have ‘saved’ money.

How much longer is the government going to suppress the cost to households of achieving net zero carbon emissions, or try to imply, as business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng recently seemed to imply on the Today programme, that it won’t cost us at all?

Even as he spoke Kwarteng was working on a new model for the funding of nuclear power stations that was unveiled yesterday in the form of the Nuclear Energy Finance Bill. The proposed legislation will impose levies on energy bills in order to subsidise the construction of new nuclear power stations. The new model of funding — called Regulated Asset Base — will replace the model by which Hinkley C is being constructed: the contracts for difference, or CfD, model which was used to entice EDF to undertake the project.

The carrot is a guaranteed ‘strike’ price for electricity generated by the plant as soon as it starts generating electricity. Funding plants upfront may have the agreeable effect of cutting out Chinese finance. Moreover, the CfD model was failing to attract investors for other projects, such as the proposed new nuclear reactor at Wylfa, which Hitachi abandoned a year ago.

But it will inevitably transfer risk to the consumer — should, say, the proposed new plant at Sizewell in Suffolk end up being abandoned before it begins generating power, taxpayers will already have paid towards the plant
through their bills. Transferring that risk to the private sector was the whole reason for introducing the Hinkley form of funding in the first place.

We don’t yet know how big the sting will be to energy consumers to finance Sizewell C through the new funding model — the Department for Business insists it will be ‘a few pounds a year’ per household during
the early construction phases, followed by ‘less than £1 a month’ during the full construction phase. But it is somewhat dubious to replace a very expensive form of subsidy with one that promises to be merely
expensive — and then claim that you have ‘saved’ money.

 Spectator 27th Oct 2021

 https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/who-should-pay-for-nuclear-

October 30, 2021 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment