nuclear-news

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

The Battle of Kursk probably won’t result in nuclear weapons use against Ukraine. But Russian escalation vis-à-vis NATO can’t be ruled out.

any nuclear use against Ukraine would be self-defeating for Russia.

involvement of the West turned Russia’s so-called “special military operation” (“SVO” in Russia) into a full-scale war. Consequently, nuclear signaling has been addressed to the West.

Russia’s central concern is the possible Western involvement in the war on the side of Ukraine, which can turn the tide at the front line. The most visible cause for such concern is the provision of modern Western arms to Ukraine, including long-range missiles capable of targeting deep into Russian territory.

Bulletin, By Nikolai N. Sokov | August 26, 2024

The successful Ukrainian offensive in the Russian Kursk oblast started in early August has once again triggered speculation about possible Russian nuclear use against Ukraine. The situation resembles the successful Ukrainian offensive in the late summer-fall of 2022 in the Kharkiv oblast, when many worried Russia would resort to battlefield nuclear use to stop advancing Ukrainian forces. On the face of it, there was reason to be concerned: Russian President Vladimir Putin did reference nuclear weapons in September 2022, and it became known more than a year later that the United States was “rigorously” preparing for that contingency.

A closer look reveals, however, that Putin’s 2022 reference to nuclear weapons sounded as an emotional impromptu remark made under stress, whereas the US assessment was reportedly based on an intercept of conversations among Russian generals rather than on tangible signs of preparation or data about discussions among policymakers. We now know that Moscow dealt with that situation in a different way: Partial mobilization helped beef up forces, which stopped the Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive.

Although the Kursk operation caught Russia by surprise once again, its military and civilian leadership are better prepared today to deal with surprise than in 2022.

One has reasons to be skeptical about the prospect of battlefield use of nuclear weapons. It was considered an acceptable option during the Cold War, especially its early years. Both the United States and the Soviet Union held large-scale exercises with live nuclear explosions in the 1950s, and both nuclear powers contemplated large-scale use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Today, however, is different. The “nuclear taboo,” which began to take shape in the 1950s, has grown very strong.

Not that nuclear use is technically impossible. But the political and ethical implications make such a decision daunting—and unlikely. Battlefield nuclear use in Ukraine, for whatever reason, would make Russia a true pariah state in the international system, turning countries—partners and neutrals alike, all critical for breaking the tight sanctions regime, which has been established by the G7 economies and their partners—against Moscow. In other words, any nuclear use against Ukraine would be self-defeating for Russia.

Nuclear signals. Russian nuclear signaling has been persistent, going up and down throughout the war, with high points in the fall of 2022 and the spring of 2024, when Russian official rhetoric was the loudest. (Unofficial and semi-official rhetoric has never really stopped.) This signaling, however, has been exclusively and explicitly directed at the West—the United States and its allies. Even the very first statement of Putin announcing the “special military operation” contained a message to the West: “Do not interfere.”

This is hardly surprising: The war is conceptualized in Russia as a proxy war with NATO. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, has repeatedly said—most recently in March and June of this year—that involvement of the West turned Russia’s so-called “special military operation” (“SVO” in Russia) into a full-scale war. Consequently, nuclear signaling has been addressed to the West.

The Ukrainian operation in Kursk may carry certain risks, but these risks are different from what is commonly and hastily assumed as nuclear use against Ukraine.

Russia’s central concern is the possible Western involvement in the war on the side of Ukraine, which can turn the tide at the front line. The most visible cause for such concern is the provision of modern Western arms to Ukraine, including long-range missiles capable of targeting deep into Russian territory.

At a certain level, Western assistance may create serious, perhaps even insurmountable challenges for the Russian military. Each new step—including the provision of tanks, missile defense systems, tactical ballistic missile systems, and most recently F-16 fighter jets—triggers warnings about possible escalation. So far, Russia has coped with each new level of Ukraine’s military capability, but this may change in the future if Western assistance continues or even intensifies.

Perhaps more consequential for Russia, although less visible, is the provision of intelligence, which has helped Ukraine to select targets and significantly constrains Russia’s ability to clandestinely concentrate and move forces and supplies……………………………….

Russians often repeat that a nuclear state cannot be defeated. This is true only to an extent, but there is realization in the Kremlin and beyond that defeat in the ongoing war cannot be tactical. Not only it will end the political regime—which the Kremlin equates with sovereignty—but consequences will affect the entire country for decades. If Russia considers itself de facto at war with the United States and NATO and believes the West seeks its “strategic defeat,” then nuclear weapons legitimately enter the picture under the existing 2020 Decree on Nuclear Deterrence and the 2014 Military Doctrine.  This is precisely the situation the United States has tried to avoid: ………………………………

Russian nuclear signals to the West can be divided into two categories.

The first is public statements, especially coming from the most authoritative source, Vladimir Putin, which have been relatively rare—namely, the “SVO” announcement and the September 2022 warning referenced above. ………………………. If someone’s actions will threaten our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we consider it allowable to use all means at our disposal.” Putin also declared that ndeclaredew threats may force Russia to change its nuclear doctrine, hinting that the nuclear threshold might be lowered.

The second category of nuclear signals is arguably more tangible: actions that change Russia’s nuclear posture and/or alert level. Such actions notably include nuclear sharing arrangements with Belarus, whose implementation began in the summer of 2022—after it became clear that war with Ukraine would be protracted, and Russia could not prevent the West from providing assistance to Ukraine—and was completed already in mid-2023. Other highly visible examples are exercises with tactical nuclear weapons, which have been held in three stages in May, June, and August of 2024………………….

Fuzzy red lines. Without doubt, publicly playing with the prospect of nuclear war is dangerous—in addition to be morally reprehensible—but one must admit that Moscow has been relatively restrained in its threats so far; it could certainly make more threats and make them more openly. So why has Russia shown such restraint as it conducts a full-fledged war?

……………………………………………………………………………………….The Russian leadership itself may not know what exactly constitutes a red line. So far, it seems to make such judgement after the fact, evaluating each new level of assistance to determine its impact on the course of the war. If and when such impact reaches a level that puts Russia on the brink of a “strategic defeat,” it may be classified as having crossed a red line…………………..

Evaluation of each new step takes time—from weeks to months. The absence of visible reaction may create a false sense of safety, potentially emboldening U.S. and Western officials. Then, if and when a Russian reaction takes place, it may catch Western allies by surprise and be perceived as unjustified and unprovoked, for the precise reason that the red line was unknown.

No doubt that Russia is very reluctant to launch an escalation that could result in nuclear use: The costs to Russia itself would be enormous—probably unbearable for the country and its leadership. ……………………………….

 ………the riskiest circumstances will happen after a red line has been crossed, not before. Each side will balance between caution and the perceived strategic need to act. Worse, a long sequence of moves that did not result in escalation may create a false sense of security and increase propensity for risk-taking on the part of Western military officials and political leaders.

…………………..The crossing of a red line in the war in Ukraine may not result in nuclear use. A more likely contingency is escalation starting with something relatively small, but visibly consequential………………………………………. The threat of nuclear use is expected to force the West to retreat, because its stakes in the conflict are believed to be lower than those of Russia in the war in Ukraine.

……………………………………………………………………..It can be predicted with reasonable confidence that Russia will not threaten, much less use, nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Escalation vis-à-vis NATO, however, is a different matter: That likelihood appears higher, but knowing in advance how high it is may be impossible.

Considering the risks outlined above, one obvious question is whether the West should continue and perhaps increase support of Ukraine. I believe that questions about the Kursk invasion and whether the West should continue aiding Ukraine are essentially unrelated. Regardless of which decision is made in regard to Western aid, the risks of that policy must be known and understood. Nothing good can come out of policy that is consciously blind to possible challenges. To the contrary, full information can enhance chances for success and lessen the likelihood of escalation.  https://thebulletin.org/2024/08/the-battle-of-kursk-probably-wont-result-in-nuclear-weapons-use-against-ukraine-but-russian-escalation-vis-a-vis-nato-cant-be-ruled-out/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter08262024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_RussianEscalationVisAVis_08262024

August 27, 2024 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear power risks rising in Russia-Ukraine war

Dr Philip Webber, SGR, warns that another nuclear power plant is at major risk as the war enters new territory.

Responsible Science blog, 22 August 2024 more https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/nuclear-power-risks-rising-russia-ukraine-war—

The Russia-Ukraine war has already led to extremely serious risks to nuclear power plants. In a previous article, [1] I described in some detail those related to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (ZNPP) in Ukraine. The situation there has once again deteriorated – as I discuss below – but I want to focus first on the threat to another power station.

Kursk

Due to the Ukraine military incursion into the Kursk region of the Russian Federation, which began on 15 August, [2] there is now a severe risk to the huge Kursk nuclear power plant (KNPP) – which has elements in common with the Chernobyl plant. The KNPP is located some 60 kilometres from the border with Ukraine and is, at the time of writing, close to an area of fierce fighting. As a result, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has issued further warnings to remind the warring parties to not risk a nuclear disaster in Europe. [3][4]

The KNPP – like the ZNPP – includes six nuclear reactors, and is also one of the three biggest nuclear power stations in Russia. But there are two critical differences. First, two of the KNPP reactors are operating at full power. Second, these two reactors are of the same design – the RBMK – as the Chernobyl nuclear plant, which suffered the world’s worst nuclear accident in 1986. Crucially, these reactors have no protective dome structure [5] making them very vulnerable to a military strike or aircraft impact. With intense fighting only a few tens of kilometres away, both reactors are well within the range of artillery or rocket fire. A military strike on either reactor could initiate a very serious release of radioactive material creating a Europe-wide nuclear disaster.

It is anticipated that the IAEA will soon visit the Kursk NPP to assess the situation on the ground.

Zaporizhzhia

Returning to the situation at the Zaporizhzhia NPP, IAEA inspectors stationed there have again reported intense military activity – artillery, rocket and heavy machine-gun fire – very close to the plant, and several instances of explosive drone strikes on the plant itself, as well as on vital electrical substations and surrounding woodland. [6] One of the two ZNPP cooling towers was hit, fires were started beside an electrical sub-station resulting in a loss of power, and the perimeter road was cratered.

The six ZNPP reactors are all in ‘cold shutdown’ but rely on a supply of electricity to power pumps for water cooling of the reactor cores – and a large number of spent fuel storage tanks – to prevent overheating to dangerous levels and a resultant release of radioactive material. The reliable supply of water remains a serious problem and emergency supplies of fuel for emergency diesel generators are also dangerously low.

Drone attacks also continue to be reported near Ukraine’s other nuclear power sites. [7]

The IAEA Director General, Rafael Grossi, has issued a series of warnings reminding both Russia and Ukraine of UN agreements to avoid military activity at or near nuclear plants. [8] However, the only way to remove these risks completely is for a rapid, negotiated end to the war.
 

Dr Philip Webber is Co-chair of Scientists for Global Responsibility. He has written widely on the risks of nuclear weapons and nuclear power – including co-authoring the book, London After the Bomb. He spent part of his career working as an emergency planner in local government.
 

References………………………………………………..

August 27, 2024 Posted by | Russia, safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Farewell, the American Century

What flag-wavers tend to leave out of their account of the American Century is not only the contributions of others, but the various missteps perpetrated by the United States — missteps, it should be noted, that spawned many of the problems bedeviling us today.

Rewriting the Past by Adding In What’s Been Left Out

By Andrew Bacevich  TomDispatch, 25 Aug 24

In a recent column, the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen wrote, “What Henry Luce called ‘the American Century’ is over.” Cohen is right. All that remains is to drive a stake through the heart of Luce’s pernicious creation, lest it come back to life. This promises to take some doing.

To solve our problems requires that we see ourselves as we really are. And that requires shedding, once and for all, the illusions embodied in the American Century.

When the Time-Life publisher coined his famous phrase, his intent was to prod his fellow citizens into action. Appearing in the February 7, 1941 issue of Life, his essay, “The American Century,” hit the newsstands at a moment when the world was in the throes of a vast crisis. A war in Europe had gone disastrously awry. A second almost equally dangerous conflict was unfolding in the Far East. Aggressors were on the march.

With the fate of democracy hanging in the balance, Americans diddled. Luce urged them to get off the dime. More than that, he summoned them to “accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world… to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”

Read today, Luce’s essay, with its strange mix of chauvinism, religiosity, and bombast (“We must now undertake to be the Good Samaritan to the entire world…”), does not stand up well. Yet the phrase “American Century” stuck and has enjoyed a remarkable run. It stands in relation to the contemporary era much as “Victorian Age” does to the nineteenth century. In one pithy phrase, it captures (or at least seems to capture) the essence of some defining truth: America as alpha and omega, source of salvation and sustenance, vanguard of history, guiding spirit and inspiration for all humankind.

In its classic formulation, the central theme of the American Century has been one of righteousness overcoming evil. The United States (above all the U.S. military) made that triumph possible. When, having been given a final nudge on December 7, 1941, Americans finally accepted their duty to lead, they saved the world from successive diabolical totalitarianisms. In doing so, the U.S. not only preserved the possibility of human freedom but modeled what freedom ought to look like.

Thank You, Comrades

So goes the preferred narrative of the American Century, as recounted by its celebrants.

The problems with this account are two-fold. First, it claims for the United States excessive credit. Second, it excludes, ignores, or trivializes matters at odds with the triumphal story-line.

The net effect is to perpetuate an array of illusions that, whatever their value in prior decades, have long since outlived their usefulness. In short, the persistence of this self-congratulatory account deprives Americans of self-awareness, hindering our efforts to navigate the treacherous waters in which the country finds itself at present. Bluntly, we are perpetuating a mythic version of the past that never even approximated reality and today has become downright malignant. Although Richard Cohen may be right in declaring the American Century over, the American people — and especially the American political class — still remain in its thrall.

Constructing a past usable to the present requires a willingness to include much that the American Century leaves out.

For example, to the extent that the demolition of totalitarianism deserves to be seen as a prominent theme of contemporary history (and it does), the primary credit for that achievement surely belongs to the Soviet Union. When it came to defeating the Third Reich, the Soviets bore by far the preponderant burden, sustaining 65% of all Allied deaths in World War II.

By comparison, the United States suffered 2% of those losses, for which any American whose father or grandfather served in and survived that war should be saying: Thank you, Comrade Stalin.

For the United States to claim credit for destroying the Wehrmacht is the equivalent of Toyota claiming credit for inventing the automobile. We entered the game late and then shrewdly scooped up more than our fair share of the winnings. The true “Greatest Generation” is the one that willingly expended millions of their fellow Russians while killing millions of German soldiers.

Hard on the heels of World War II came the Cold War, during which erstwhile allies became rivals. Once again, after a decades-long struggle, the United States came out on top…………………………………………….

What flag-wavers tend to leave out of their account of the American Century is not only the contributions of others, but the various missteps perpetrated by the United States — missteps, it should be noted, that spawned many of the problems bedeviling us today.

The instances of folly and criminality bearing the label “made-in-Washington” may not rank up there with the Armenian genocide, the Bolshevik Revolution, the appeasement of Adolf Hitler, or the Holocaust, but they sure don’t qualify as small change. To give them their due is necessarily to render the standard account of the American Century untenable.

Here are several examples, each one familiar, even if its implications for the problems we face today are studiously ignored:

Cuba. In 1898, the United States went to war with Spain for the proclaimed purpose of liberating the so-called Pearl of the Antilles. When that brief war ended, Washington reneged on its promise. If there actually has been an American Century, it begins here, with the U.S. government breaking a solemn commitment, while baldly insisting otherwise. By converting Cuba into a protectorate, the United States set in motion a long train of events leading eventually to the rise of Fidel Castro, the Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and even today’s Guantanamo Bay prison camp. The line connecting these various developments may not be a straight one, given the many twists and turns along the way, but the dots do connect.

The Bomb.…………………..the role the United States played in afflicting humankind with this scourge.

The United States invented the bomb. The United States — alone among members of the nuclear club — actually employed it as a weapon of war. The U.S. led the way in defining nuclear-strike capacity as the benchmark of power in the postwar world, leaving other powers like the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China scrambling to catch up. Today, the U.S. still maintains an enormous nuclear arsenal at the ready and adamantly refuses to commit itself to a no-first-use policy, even as it professes its horror at the prospect of some other nation doing as the United States itself has done.

Iran. Extending his hand to Tehran, President Obama has invited those who govern the Islamic republic to “unclench their fists.” Yet to a considerable degree, those clenched fists are of our own making………………….

Afghanistan.………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………..All we know for sure is that policies concocted in Washington by reputedly savvy statesmen now look exceedingly ill-advised.

What are we to make of these blunders? The temptation may be to avert our gaze, thereby preserving the reassuring tale of the American Century. We should avoid that temptation and take the opposite course, acknowledging openly, freely, and unabashedly where we have gone wrong. We should carve such acknowledgments into the face of a new monument smack in the middle of the Mall in Washington: We blew it. We screwed the pooch. We caught a case of the stupids. We got it ass-backwards.

Only through the exercise of candor might we avoid replicating such mistakes.

……………………………………………………….. apologize to them, but for our own good — to free ourselves from the accumulated conceits of the American Century and to acknowledge that the United States participated fully in the barbarism, folly, and tragedy that defines our time. For those sins, we must hold ourselves accountable.  https://tomdispatch.com/farewell-the-american-century-2/

August 27, 2024 Posted by | culture and arts, history, USA | Leave a comment

China keeps door firmly closed to Japanese seafood imports

Japan Times, Zhoushan, China – 24 Aug 24

China is keeping its door tightly shut to Japanese fishery products after imposing an import ban a year ago in protest against the discharge of treated water into the sea from a crippled nuclear power plant in Japan.

Despite Tokyo’s repeated assurances that the procedure is safe, Chinese officials still refer to the treated water, which contains small amounts of radioactive tritium, as “nuclear-contaminated water.”

Tokyo and Beijing are in talks over the issue but there are no clues yet as to how the situation could be resolved.

In a meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa late last month, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reiterated Beijing’s demand that an international system to monitor the water release be established.

China imposed the blanket ban on fishery products from Japan on Aug. 24 last year immediately after the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant started releasing treated water.

Chinese trade statistics show that no fishery products, except aquarium fish, have been imported from Japan since September last year…………………………………………..

The Japanese food company’s sales in China have yet to return to normal levels. “The situation remains tough,” the food company official said.

The impact of the import ban has spread further than Beijing had anticipated.

A woman in her 40s in Beijing said she has not eaten marine products for a long while.

……………………………………………Beijing has said seafood sold in China is safe because strict radiation inspections are conducted in China.

But a dealer in fishery products in Zhoushan said that the ocean is connected. It is illogical that Japanese products are dangerous and Chinese products are safe, the dealer said.

In China, experts’ views that the treated water would reach the Chinese coast as early as this spring spread in state media and on social media. ……………………………………………… https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2024/08/24/china-ban-japan-seafood/—

August 27, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, China | Leave a comment

Why the big push for nuclear power as “green”?

Why is it so difficult to recognise that – as is normal with technologies – nuclear energy is obsolescing? 

nuclear affections are a military romance. Powerful defence interests – with characteristic secrecy and highly active PR – are mostly driving the dogged persistence. 

     https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/08/25/why-the-big-push-for-nuclear-power-as-green/

Heavy lobbying by France and a “military romance” provide some answers, write Andy Stirling and Phil Johnstone

Whatever one’s view of nuclear issues, an open mind is crucial. Massive vested interests and noisy media clamour require efforts to view a bigger picture. A case in point arises around the European Commission’s much criticised proposal – and the European Parliament’s strongly opposed decision – to last year accredit nuclear power as a ‘green’ energy source.   

In a series of legal challenges, the European Commission and NGOs including Greenpeace are tussling over what kind and level of ’sustainability’ nuclear power might be held to offer. 

To understand how an earlier more sceptical EC position on nuclear was overturned, deeper questions are needed about a broader context. Recent moves in Brussels follow years of wrangling. Journalists reported intense lobbying – especially by the EU’s only nuclear-armed nation: France. At stake is whether inclusion of nuclear power in the controversial ‘green taxonomy’ will open the door to major financial support for ‘sustainable’ nuclear power. 

Notions of sustainability were (like climate concerns) pioneered in environmentalism long before being picked up in mainstream policy. And – even when its comparative disadvantages were less evident – criticism of nuclear was always central to green activism. So, it might be understood why current efforts from outside environmentalism to rehabilitate nuclear as ‘sustainable’ are open to accusations of ‘greenwash’ and ‘doublespeak’.

In deciding such questions, the internationally-agreed ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ are a key guide. These address various issues associated with all energy options – including costs and wellbeing, health effects, accident risks, pollution and wastes, landscape impacts and disarmament issues. So, do such comparative pros and cons of nuclear power warrant classification alongside wind, solar and efficiency?   

On some aspects, the picture is relatively open. All energy investments yield employment and development benefits, largely in proportion to funding. On all sides, simply counting jobs or cash flowing through favoured options and forgetting alternatives leads to circular arguments. If (despite being highlighted in the Ukraine War), unique vulnerabilities of nuclear power to attack are set aside, then the otherwise largely ‘domestic’ nature of both nuclear and renewables can be claimed to be comparable.

Orderings are more stark on economics and environment. Despite room for many views, it is difficult to deny that history raises especially grave queries about nuclear power. Nuclear costs have long been acknowledged to be far less competitive than renewables. Multiple nuclear accidents have occurred of kinds initially claimed to have ‘negligible’ likelihood. Nuclear waste “solutions” are still largely undeveloped. New questions continually arise about assumptions underpinning ‘safe levels’ of ionising radiation. Build times far exceeding those promised have helped cause nuclear bankruptcy and fraud. Growth rates of renewables surpass what government officials even quite recently claimed to be physically possible. Associated trends nearly all favour renewables.

But what of climate urgency? Does this not justify nuclear proponents’ calls to “do everything” to “keep the nuclear option open” (as if this were an end in itself)? Again: deeper thought might expose this as special pleading. Precisely because climate action is so imperative, isn’t it more rational to prioritise whatever is most substantial, cost effective and rapid? 

A more reasoned approach might ask about long-neglected kinds of statistical analysis, which show that national carbon emission reductions tend to associate less with nuclear than with renewable uptake. Key reasons here include that nuclear contributions to climate targets are smaller, slower and more expensive than are offered by renewables. So other evidence that nuclear and renewable energy strategies also tend to conflict further queries the ‘sustainable’ status of nuclear power.

What then of claimed needs for ‘baseload’ power – to manage variable outputs from some renewables? Surprisingly given its public profile, this notion is long abandoned by the electricity industry as “outdated”. Nuclear power is itself inflexible in its own way. Myriad system innovations, grid improvements, demand measures and new storage technologies are all available to better address variable renewables over different timescales. Even in relatively pro-nuclear UK, it is authoritatively documented how a 100% renewable system outperforms any level of nuclear contribution. Even the UK Government now admits that adding these costs still leaves renewables outcompeting nuclear. In less nuclear-committed European countries, the picture is even more stark. 

So, as this picture has unfolded, nuclear ‘sustainability’ arguments have retreated through successively undermined claims – that nuclear is “necessary”; brooks “no alternative”; is “more competitive”; uniquely offers to “keep the lights on”; or is just a way to “do everything” (as if this was ever a sensible response to any challenge, especially one as urgent and existential as climate disruption). 

Whatever position one starts from, then, a final question arises: why all the fuss? Why should it be now after all these years (just as its comparative performance becomes so much less favourable) that European efforts become so newly energetic to redefine nuclear as ‘sustainable’? Why is it so difficult to recognise that – as is normal with technologies – nuclear energy is obsolescing? 

Here, the answer is surprisingly obvious. It is officially repeatedly confirmed in countries working hardest to revive nuclear power – atomic weapons states like the US, France, the UK, Russia and China. Oddly neglected in mainstream energy policy and the media, the picture is especially evident on the defence side. Although skewed public debates leave many unaware, nuclear affections are a military romance. Powerful defence interests – with characteristic secrecy and highly active PR – are mostly driving the dogged persistence.

The result is clear. Dubiously justified in climate terms, elevated consumer prices, government funding and public risk underwriting all help maintain a joint civil/military ‘nuclear industrial base’. In nuclear armed countries like the UK and France, this helps fund – outside defence budgets, off the public books and away from due scrutiny – expensive specialist nuclear skills, supply chains, research facilities, navy recruitment, wider infrastructures. In particular, the building and operating of nuclear propelled submarines would be unaffordable without these concealed cross-subsidies. Without nuclear power, it would become much harder to guarantee the later careers that are so essential in recruiting nuclear-trained officers.

As President Macron recently said “without civilian nuclear, no military nuclear, without military nuclear, no civilian nuclear”. This is the main reason why France is pressing so hard for nuclear to be supported by the European Union as ‘sustainable’. This is why non-nuclear-armed Germany has been more open to grasping nuclear realities. This is why France and Germany find themselves at such loggerheads on this issue. This is why the UK Government so opposes this – and is so fixated on support for general nuclear skills. This is why other nuclear-armed states in general, are so resolutely fixated by the slow, small and costly nuclear response to the climate emergency. 

A decision has yet to be reached on whether the inclusion of nuclear by the European Commission in their Green Taxonomy is unlawful. Yet it is clear that nuclear compares poorly to other low carbon technologies when considered in terms of sustainability. What is especially concerning is that the military rationales that are influencing renewed enthusiasm for nuclear are largely unaddressed in policy and wider media coverage. That associated issues are so little discussed, raises grave concerns not just for energy and climate policy, but for European democracy as a whole. 

Andy Stirling is Professor of Science & Technology Policy in the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex. Philip Johnstone is Research Fellow, SPRU, University of Sussex.

August 26, 2024 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

Harris’s concluding speech at DNC embraces agenda of global war

Harris declared, “As commander-in-chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” As for whom this force will be fighting, Harris left little doubt, going on to refer to China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, the same countries that the Biden-Harris administration has targeted in a new document outlining American strategy for a future nuclear world war.

Patrick Martin, 23 August 2024

The four days of the Democratic National Convention culminated Thursday with the acceptance speech by Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party’s candidate for president.

As a whole, the convention consisted of an endless series of inane speeches, hosannahs to Harris that completely falsified her right-wing career as a prosecutor, declarations from billionaires that Harris would be a “president of joy” and constant invocations of the “historic” character of elevating a (multi-millionaire) African American and Asian American woman to the presidency.

The Democrats sought to substitute entertainment for policy, with a series of Hollywood and pop music celebrities embracing Harris. However, the real content of the policies they propose came through in the candidate’s closing speech: an agenda of escalating global war.

Harris declared, “As commander-in-chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” As for whom this force will be fighting, Harris left little doubt, going on to refer to China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, the same countries that the Biden-Harris administration has targeted in a new document outlining American strategy for a future nuclear world war.

As in any major address by an American capitalist politician, Harris’s acceptance speech was directed to two audiences. For Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus, the real base of the Democratic Party, Harris pledged to continue the militaristic foreign policy of the Biden administration to defend the global interests of the American financial aristocracy. 

She was a safe pair of hands, she proclaimed, unlike the unreliable and self-interested Trump—a theme sounded on the convention’s final day by a range of right-wing speakers, from former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta, to a string of Republicans who are now endorsing Harris, to a trio of military-intelligence officials now holding seats as Democrats in the House of Representatives.

While Harris’s brief reference to the suffering of the Palestinian population of Gaza was highlighted in media accounts—and will undoubtedly be hailed as a significant shift by the pseudo-left apologists for the Democratic Party—this came after she flatly reiterated an uncompromising pledge to provide unlimited US military aid to Israel: “I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself.”

In other words, more bombs and missiles to kill tens of thousands more in Gaza and potentially in the West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran and other countries in the region targeted by imperialism…………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/08/24/turk-a24.html

August 26, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | 2 Comments

Britain’s Dirtiest Beaches – Don’t Mention the Pu!

The cocktail of radioactive wastes on our beaches is a direct result of the uranium fuel industry whose product is actually nuclear wastes rather than the ephemeral here today gone tomorrow electricity. 

On  By mariannewildart,  https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2024/08/23/britains-dirtiest-beaches-dont-mention-the-pu/
Seascale and Haverigg are in the top 10 dirtiest beaches for poo – they also contain Pu (Plutonium) but no-one is looking at the health impacts of long lived radio-toxic pollution on our beaches.

The West Cumbrian coastline cradling the World Heritage Site of the Lake District has two entries in the top 10 dirtiest beaches featured in yesterday’s Express. While much is made quite rightly of the health impacts of sewage pollution no-one is willing to talk about the Pu (Plutonium) on West Cumbrian beaches and in harbours near the worlds riskiest nuclear waste site. Sellafield has a larger workforce 11,000+ than all the surrounding towns and villages put together. According to the Environment Agency “We are working with Sellafield Limited to investigate the potential impact of non-radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site. The primary focus is on sewage originating from the toilet facilities provided on site for the Sellafield workforce. The work is considering whether the level of sewage treatment needs to be enhanced to improve and protect the bathing water quality at Seascale thus protecting public health”.  2024 Bathing Water Profile for Seascale.

The West Cumbrian coastline cradling the World Heritage Site of the Lake District has two entries in the top 10 dirtiest beaches featured in yesterday’s Express. While much is made quite rightly of the health impacts of sewage pollution no-one is willing to talk about the Pu (Plutonium) on West Cumbrian beaches and in harbours near the worlds riskiest nuclear waste site. Sellafield has a larger workforce 11,000+ than all the surrounding towns and villages put together. According to the Environment Agency “We are working with Sellafield Limited to investigate the potential impact of non-radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site. The primary focus is on sewage originating from the toilet facilities provided on site for the Sellafield workforce. The work is considering whether the level of sewage treatment needs to be enhanced to improve and protect the bathing water quality at Seascale thus protecting public health”.  2024 Bathing Water Profile for Seascale.

Nuclear wastes continue to arrive daily and a vicious cocktail of nuclear wastes continues to pour into the Irish Sea daily. Enough was enough decades ago. But this gargantuan radio-toxic turd on the Lake District coastline continues to accept nuclear wastes from existing reactors in the UK while MPs, government and the nuclear industry agitate for ever more nuclear waste from new build next to Sellafeld and elsewhere. 

The cocktail of radioactive wastes on our beaches is a direct result of the uranium fuel industry whose product is actually nuclear wastes rather than the ephemeral here today gone tomorrow electricity. 

So the nuclear waste industry’s message is ‘Don’t mention the Pu.’ In fact the nuclear industry has a vested interest in encouraging youngsters to dig for hours on the beaches – its great PR for the nuclear waste industry and says “look we are great neighbours and we are giving you (tax payers) money for your beach events because the beaches are soooo safe.” 

August 26, 2024 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

The UK nuclear lobby’s festival of joyous propaganda.

The Sizewell C team has been raising awareness of the new nuclear power
project at community events across the county this summer. From The Suffolk
Show and the First Light Festival to Sotterley Country Fair, the team have
been engaging with thousands of people across the county as the project
continues to make significant progress.

“We’re really lucky in Suffolk to
have some of the best summer festivals and community events in the
country,” says Marjorie Barnes, Head of Regional External Affairs and
Development, Sizewell C. This week, Sizewell C volunteers attended the
Aldeburgh Carnival, and in September the team will be at the first Leiston
Book Festival.

Sizewell C 23rd Aug 2024

Keeping communities up to date at a summer of Suffolk events

August 26, 2024 Posted by | culture and arts, UK | Leave a comment

Fluid leak forces rail shipment to return to the San Onofre nuclear power plant

Federal regulator says the leak had “low safety significance” but Southern California Edison officials admit it should not have happened.

By Rob Nikolewski | rob.nikolewski@sduniontribune.com | The San Diego Union-Tribune, August 21, 2024

A pair of dismantled pressurizers that departed the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station by rail had to be returned to the now-shuttered power plant after it was discovered that one of the giant pieces of equipment had leaked fluid during the trip.

Surveys conducted by the plant’s operator, Southern California Edison, said “no detectable radioactivity” above otherwise normal background levels was detected and there was “no threat to public health and safety, or the environment.” But an official with the utility admitted to the Union-Tribune, “that should not happen.”

An inspection from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found two violations but the federal regulator’s report described the “safety significance” of the infractions as “low.”

The NRC’s inspection report made no mention of issuing any fines.

But Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, suspects the NRC’s report does not reflect “the severity of (Edison and its contractor’s) screw-up.”

“They had one job to do, which was to transport this pressurizer without any (free) liquid in a container that couldn’t leak,” Lyman said. “And they missed on both counts.”

……………………………What happened?

The San Onofore Nuclear Generating Station, known as SONGS for short, is in the midst of a massive $4.7 billion decommissioning and dismantlement project that is scheduled to wrap up by the end of 2028.

During the course of the demolition, about 1.1 billion pounds of material is expected to be removed, with most of it going by rail. More than 1,000 rail shipments originating from a spur built at SONGS have left the site since dismantlement efforts began some four years ago.

In late June, two large pressurizers were loaded onto special rail cars, on their way to a disposal site in Clive, Utah.

When a nuclear power plant is in operation, pressurizers control reactor coolant systems that use demineralized pure water to remove heat from the reactor core and allow steam to power turbine generators.

The SONGS Unit 2 and Unit 3 pressurizers are big — 37 feet tall and weighing about 100 tons each, with capacity to regulate 16,500 gallons of liquid.

After they were taken out, the pressurizers were labeled as Class A waste, which is the lowest level of radioactive waste as classified by the NRC.

At a stop at a railyard in San Bernardino, a worker noticed a water leakage on the top of the flatbed railcar hauling the Unit 2 pressurizer. SCE officials said the water did not drip onto the ground.

No leaks were found in the Unit 3 pressurizer but both were sent back to SONGS to find out what happened.

Although each pressurizer was supposed to be completely drained, it was soon discovered that 190 gallons of water was found at the bottom of the Unit 2 pressurizer.

“Workers incorrectly believed” all the water had been drained out of the pressurizer before it was loaded onto the rail car, Pontes said.

What now?

An ongoing investigation is trying to determine what went wrong. Until then, the pressurizers from both units will not be rescheduled for shipment back to Utah.

The NRC noted two violations — one for failing to ensure the pressurizer was “properly closed and sealed to prevent release of radioactive content” and the second for not properly packaging it for shipment.

Pontes said the NRC findings are being reviewed by SCE, the dismantlement’s general contractor (called SONGS Decommissioning Solutions) and workers at the facility. “We remain committed, in our oversight role, to ensuring safety and adherence to all regulatory material packaging requirements,” he said.

But Lyman questioned whether the NRC’s actions amounted to a “slap on the wrist.”

“When they process these violations through their system and it spits out ‘low-safety significance,’ I don’t feel it conveys the gravity of the two violations, when compounded, led to a release of this liquid,” Lyman said. “It could have been worse, presumably.”

Other incidents

First opened in 1968, SONGS has not produced electricity since 2012 after a leak in a steam generator tube led to its closing.

In August 2018, a 50-ton canister filled with radioactive spent fuel was being transferred to a dry storage facility on the north end of SONGS. While being lowered into a cavity, the canister was accidentally left suspended almost 20 feet from the floor.

Eventually, the canister was safely lowered but the NRC later fined Edison $116,000 and chided the company for failing “to establish a rigorous process to ensure adequate procedures, training and oversight guidance.”

In April 2022, demolition work was briefly halted after a worker fell about five feet while trying to install a ventilation hose into the floor vault opening, injuring his shoulder.

Once the dismantlement project wraps up, all that is expected to remain at SONGS will be two dry storage facilities; a security building with personnel to look over the waste; a seawall 28 feet high, as measured at average low tide at San Onofre Beach; a walkway connecting two beaches north and south of the plant, and a switchyard with power lines.

The switchyard’s substation without transformers stays put because it houses electricity infrastructure that provides a key interconnection for the power grid in the region.  https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2024/08/21/fluid-leak-forces-rail-shipment-to-return-to-the-san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant/?fbclid=IwY2xjawE3ZUdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHapLLh1xKud7eOWCb9iO4yGGQxJgVZFSJhbgWcw92LLlNek-XIz_bl-r_g_aem_TD76JCKRAQE_2TARdViWEw

August 26, 2024 Posted by | incidents, USA | Leave a comment

Hungary again breaks with West: Ukrainian attack on Kursk is ‘wrong’

Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge , 24 Aug 2024

Hungary has broken with its NATO and EU allies in condemning Ukraine’s Kursk incursion, calling it out as not purely ‘defensive’ but as part of needlessly provocative offensive operations against Russian territory.

Gergely Gulyas, top advisor and spokesman for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said in a Thursday press briefing that Budapest is staunchly “pro-peace” – and when asked about the ongoing Kursk invasion, he said: “Ukraine is not only defending, but also attacking. We want a ceasefire and peace.”

Gulyas went on to explain that Hungary is against anything which thwarts potential diplomatic settlement to the war. He said this is “wrong” given the offensive includes a “spillover of the hostilities into Russian territory.”

………………………………………………………………….. Orban has certainly not shared the same enthusiasm for developments in Kursk as other European leaders. For example, recently the EU’s top diplomat Josep Borrell “reiterated the EU’s full support to the [Ukrainian] people’s fight.”

…………………………….Interestingly, there’s been similar pushback coming from Italy of late related to the Kursk offensive, akin to Hungary’s criticisms:

Italy’s Defence Minister Guido Crosetto has ignited a political firestorm with comments that appear to question Ukraine’s military operations inside Russian territory, POLITICO reported. In an interview, Crosetto warned that ‘no country should invade another country’ and expressed concerns over the conflict escalating into Russian territory, which could complicate efforts toward peace. His remarks have raised doubts about Italy’s commitment to Ukraine, despite Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s staunch support for Kyiv since the start of Russia’s invasion.

Crosetto emphasized that the weapons provided to Ukraine by Italy are intended strictly for defensive purposes, clarifying that these arms ‘do not have the possibility of being used for an attack on Russian territory’.

On a strategic level, while Ukraine forces have certainly dealt a serious morale blow to Kremlin leadership, Russia is still on the advance in the Donbass, where the front line to the conflict is located. If and when Ukraine’s Kursk operation utterly fails, it will have translated into no actual strategic gains in eastern Ukraine.  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/hungary-again-breaks-west-ukrainian-attack-kursk-wrong

August 26, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

Fire at Zaporizhzhia elevates meltdown risk

13 Aug 24,  https://cnduk.org/fire-at-zaporizhzhia-elevates-meltdown-risk/

CND scientific advisor, radiation expert Dr Ian Fairlie writes about the elevated risks posed by the recent fire at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. 

The recent fire at the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine is causing much concern throughout Europe.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy company, Energoatom, which operated the site until Russian forces seized control in the early days of the war, confirmed that flames broke out at the service water supply facility, later engulfing one of the cooling towers. Both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky have traded blame for the fire. The six nuclear reactors at Zaporizhzhia are in cold shutdown and no nuclear activity was recorded on Sunday August 11, but the overall risk of nuclear meltdown remains elevated. 

In 1986, the huge nuclear accident at the Chornobyl nuclear station in Ukraine resulted in radioactive fallout throughout Europe including all of the UK.

Ideally, the UK government should make arrangements to pre-distribute prophylactic iodide tablets (to protect against thyroid cancer) to all individuals who wish them, as occurs in many countries, but it has resisted previous calls for this. Current UK official advice on iodide tablets merely states “you will be given official advice from government or emergency services on how to get them, when to take them and how much to take”.

In the absence of timely official UK advice, readers may wish to consult official US advice or the WHO’s advice.

August 26, 2024 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Blinken ‘Sentenced Ceasefire Talks to Death’ With Comments on Netanyahu

sources called Blinken’s comments a “gift” to Netanyahu

Sources told Ynet that Blinken’s comments about the negotiations indicate his ‘amateurism, naivety, and lack of understanding’

 https://news.antiwar.com/2024/08/22/blinken-sentenced-ceasefire-talks-to-death-with-comments-on-netanyahu/
by Dave DeCamp August 22, 2024

Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s comments about Gaza ceasefire talks this week sentenced the negotiations to death, Middle East Eye reported Thursday, citing Israeli media.

After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, Blinken said the Israeli leader agreed to a new US proposal and that it was now up to Hamas to agree to the deal. However, the US proposal included new demands from Netanyahu that Hamas considers unacceptable. Israeli, US, and Arab sources have all said Netanyahu’s demands are too hardline and will prevent a deal.

Sources speaking to Ynet slammed Blinken for making the comments that portrayed Hamas as the obstacle to a deal. “Blinken made a very serious foul here that indicates innocence, amateurism, naivety, and lack of understanding,” a source said.

They added that Blinken’s positive spin on the ceasefire negotiations was likely an effort to prevent the situation from overshadowing the Democratic National Convention.

“He broadcast optimism from intra-American political considerations, so that the Democratic convention in Chicago would go smoothly, but senior officials of the Israeli negotiating team who listened to his press conference wanted to dispel the speculations,” the source said.

The sources called Blinken’s comments a “gift” to Netanyahu and said the Israeli leader’s continued insistence that Israel must maintain control of the Gaza-Egypt border, known as the Philadelphi Corridor, will prevent a deal.

“There is no deal and there is no summit if the Israeli insistence on deploying forces along the Philadelphi axis continues,” the source said. “What was implied in Blinken’s words is that the US is giving Netanyahu support for IDF forces to remain in Philadelphi, while both the Egyptians refuse and Hamas refuses.”

US and Israeli officials are due to meet again in Cairo this week to discuss the ceasefire, but Arab mediators have said there’s no point in holding talks unless the US puts significant pressure on Netanyahu to back down from his demands and agree to a deal.

August 25, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

“Final Investment Decision (FID) ” in Sizewell C nuclear station might never happen

There are media reports that a Final Investment Decision (FID) “risks
dragging into 2025″ over negotiations with investors. See Bloomberg’s
report, also New Civil Engineer and Energy Live News. These articles do not
consider whether a FID might not in fact ever happen, but we are keeping up
the pressure. Interestingly, while Bloomberg mentions four of the known
possible investors (see list below on original), USS and Equitix are absent. It’s
unclear what, if anything, this means but we are attempting to find out. If
you have not yet written to these companies to urge them not to invest, now
would be an excellent time to do so.

 Stop Sizewell C 22nd Aug 2024

https://mailchi.mp/stopsizewellc/fid-delay?e=326ee81c22

August 25, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Zelensky’s Misadventures in Kursk

This operation is likely to be working upside-down to what we are reading in corporate media.

Not long prior to the incursion, the Biden regime had given Kiev dispensation to use U.S.–made weapons against Russian targets so long as these were deployed in self-defense and against military targets.

the question remains. What is the point as the Kursk operation continues?

By Patrick Lawrence / Original to ScheerPost, 23 Aug 24

It has been three weeks since ground units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine crossed into the Kursk province in southwestern Russia, surprising — or maybe not surprising — the U.S. and its clients in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Two days later, the AFU began artillery and drone attacks in Belgorod, a province just south of Kursk. It has been a little more than a week since explosions at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, which lies in what is now Russian territory along the Dnipro River, ignited a fire in one of the plant’s two cooling towers. All six reactors are now in cold shutdown. 


In the still-to-be-confirmed file, BelTA, the Belarusian news agency, reported last weekend that Ukraine has amassed significant forces along the Belarus–Ukraine border. Aleksandr Lukashenko, the Belarusian president, put the troop count at an improbable 120,000. Further out in speculative territory, RT International reported at the weekend that the AFU is “preparing a nuclear false flag—an explosion of a dirty atomic bomb,” targeting nuclear-waste storage sites at the Zaporozhye plant. RT cited “intelligence received by Russia” and a military correspondent and documentarian named Marat Khairullin. 

Hmmm. 

When I began my adventures in the great craft at the New York Daily News long years ago, two of the better shards of wisdom I picked up were, “Go with what you’ve got” and “When in doubt, leave it out.” Let us proceed accordingly as we consider Ukraine’s latest doings in the proxy war it wages. I will leave aside the BelTA and RT International reports pending further developments, but with this caveat: Amassing units along the Belarus border would be entirely in keeping with the AFU’s recent forays into Russian territory. As for the imminence of a dangerous false flag op at the Zaporozhye plant, I would not put it past a regime that has acted recklessly and irrationally on numerous occasions in the past. 

Why, we are left to ask of what we know to be so, did the AFU send troops, tanks, artillery, drone units, and assorted matériel into Kursk on Tuesday, Aug. 6? And then the ancillary operation in Belgorod? Everyone wondered this at first—supposedly everyone, anyway. This is our question, and I will shortly get to the “supposedly.” 

On the eve of the incursion, Kiev was losing ground steadily to a new Russian advance in eastern Ukraine. Critically short of troops, the Ukrainian forces are, indeed, about to lose a tactically significant town, Pokrovsk, on their side of the Russian border. The thought that the AFU would sustain and expand its Kursk operation to bring the war to Russian territory in any effective way is prima facie preposterous. What was the point? Where is the strategic gain? 

In his speech Monday evening at the Democratic Party convention in Chicago, Joe Biden defended his proxy war in Ukraine as a just war waged in the name of democracy and liberty. Oh? setting aside the emptiness of this characterization, the question remains. What is the point as the Kursk operation continues? The AFU now holds one Russian town and six villages, according to the latest reports, which also indicate they have set about destroying bridges critical to Russian supply lines. But where to from here? I do not see a sensible answer. 

There is no question the Russians were caught off guard when the AFU crossed into the border village of Sudzha and proceeded with evidently little initial resistance further into Russian territory. Hundreds of thousands of Russians have been evacuated; the governor of Belgorod quickly declared a state of emergency after the drone and artillery strikes of Aug. 14. 

But we cannot count this as any kind of astute strategic move. I do not pretend to have an inside read as to Russia’s apparent intelligence failure or what looks like its flat-footed response. But I do not think we can correctly mark down events to date to the AFU’s superior strength or the Russians’ weakness or incompetence. Western correspondents are having a fine old time reporting that klutzy, clumsy Moscow is once again stumbling, but I buy none of it. In my view this is probably another case of Russian restraint: The AFU is using U.S. — and NATO — supplied weapons, and the Kremlin has all along been acutely sensitive to the risk of escalation against Kiev’s Western sponsors. 

My conclusion: No one’s script has flipped. This operation is likely to be working upside-down to what we are reading in corporate media. The best explanation they have come up with so far is that Kiev’s plan was to draw Russian forces away from the front on the Ukrainian side of the border. That has plainly not happened, however much The Times indulges in denial on this point. “And now Moscow has begun withdrawing some troops from Ukraine in an effort to repel Kyiv’s offensive into western Russia, Constant Méthuet reported Aug. 14 — before adding “according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials.” Crapulous journalism. Simply crapulous. There is no evidence of this whatsoever—only of further Russian gains as noted above. 

Inversely, the Kursk adventure required a lot of Ukrainian units to get going and more now to sustain. It is Kiev that is wasting resources on what is bound to end in retreat. The Russian military has not marshaled anything approaching its full force. This is likely to end when Moscow decides it should, and in the meantime the Russians appear to wage the same wearing war of attrition that has reduced the AFU to something close to a desperate force on the home front. 

The initial press reports of the Kursk adventure had it that top officials in Washington were caught entirely by surprise and were as perplexed as the rest of us as to the “Why?” of the thing. I do not accept this at face value, either. The Times ran a lengthy report on the Ukrainians’ preparations, featuring residents in the towns bordering Kursk remarking for weeks about the buildup of AFU units and matériel before the operation began. Russian intelligence took note, The Times also reported. And the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies, and the administration were all taken by surprise? To quote an East European emigre I knew in the old days, “Gimme break.”

Not long prior to the incursion, the Biden regime had given Kiev dispensation to use U.S.–made weapons against Russian targets so long as these were deployed in self-defense and against military targets. And the only reason the U.S. is at all interested in Ukraine, we must remind ourselves—forget about freedom and democracy, for heaven’s sake—is for its use in prosecuting the West’s long, varied campaign to subvert “Putin’s Russia.” This remains the ultimate objective. In the matter of Washington’s hand in directing the Zelensky regime from one adventure to another, Biden’s national security people wear more fig leaves than you find on a tree in Tuscany. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Maybe Zelensky wants some Russian real estate as a bargaining advantage in negotiations with Russia he has come to accept as inevitable. It is possible but does not fit with his adamant insistence that the full restoration of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, is non negotiable — a precondition to any diplomacy. And as in Netanyahu’s case, a settlement would put his political future greatly in doubt. 

In any case, Zelensky chose badly when the AFU crossed into Russian territory at Kursk. The Red Army’s defeat of the Wehrmacht at Kursk, in 1943, was the largest battle in the history of warfare and left roughly 1.7 million Russians dead, wounded, or missing. Along with Stalingrad, it marked a decisive moment in the Allied victory over the Reich.  Russians do not forget this kind of thing, especially when German weapons are part of the AFU’s arsenal. The thought of Ukrainian troops and tanks holding Kursk is another of the miscalculations that litter the story of this war since it began with the U.S.–inspired coup 10 years ago.    https://scheerpost.com/2024/08/22/patrick-lawrence-zelenskys-misadventures-in-kursk/

August 25, 2024 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A new French fairy tale: “Cheap” nuclear electricity in France is not what it appears.

The French public are paying for their nuclear addiction — and will pay even more when the plants need decommissioning. 

By Axel Mayer, 11 Sept 23,  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/09/11/a-new-french-fairy-tale/—

“Bread and games”(Panem et circenses) were the enforcement strategies in the Roman Empire to maintain power. “Cheap petrol, cheap electricity and football” are popular campaign strategies under a democracy, says Axel Mayer, Vice-President of the Trinational Nuclear Protection Association (TRAS).

In France, the nuclear industry is in decline and the nuclear company EDF is heavily in debt. At the same time, President Macron is once again promising cheap nuclear power and wants to have new small nuclear power plants built. A small part of the French nuclear industry’s financial problems is to be solved with EU money.

In this context, the fairy tale of cheap French nuclear power is happily spread in France and also in Germany and the use of nuclear energy is praised as the miracle weapon in the losing war against nature and the environment. However, the price of electricity in France is only apparently cheap.

According to a report of the supreme audit court in France, the research and development, as well as the construction of the French nuclear power plants, cost a total of 188 billion euros. Since in France the “civilian” and the military use of nuclear power cannot be separated, the sum is probably much higher. Retrofitting France’s outdated reactors will cost over 55 billion euros. Liberation magazine reports retrofitting costs of nearly 100 billion euros by 2030.

People of France are paying for expensive nuclear power with their taxes

According to a report by the French Ministry of Economy, the semi-state-owned EDF had debts of about 41 billion euros at the end of 2019, an amount that is expected to be nearly 57 billion euros by 2028. To avoid domestic political problems, EDF is not allowed to raise the price of electricity for political reasons. EDF liabilities are driving up France’s national debt massively. The people of France (and especially their grandchildren) are paying for the seemingly cheap, but in reality expensive nuclear power with their taxes.

This cost does not include the dismantling of the nuclear power plants or any costs of a severe accident. A serious nuclear accident would have devastating consequences in France. A government study estimates the cost at 430 billion euros.

Demolition costs of over 100 billion euros

In France, EDF operates 56 outdated reactors that are now becoming old and decrepit almost simultaneously, but the company has built up almost no reserves for decommissioning. In Germany, the government is very optimistic about a 47 billion euros cost for decommissioning and final storage. The decommissioning of the large number of French nuclear power plants could cost well over 100 billion euros as costs rise, if no savings are made on safety. There is a distinct possibility that the nuclear industry could bankrupt the French state even without a nuclear accident that could happen at any time.

A “European Pressurized Water Reactor” (EPR) has been under construction on France’s Atlantic coast in Flamanville since 2007. The flagship project was originally scheduled for completion in 2012 at a fixed price of 3.2 billion euros. Since then, the start of operation has been postponed again and again, and the Court of Auditors now puts the cost at over 19 billion euros. Whether the EPR can go online in 2024 is questionable. The model reactor will never work economically.

In countries with a functioning market, no new nuclear power plants are building

Swiss nuclear lobbyist and Axpo CEO Christoph Brand puts the kibosh on dreams of cheap nuclear power from new, small nuclear plants. “The production costs for the electricity supplied by new nuclear power plants are currently about twice as high as those of larger wind and solar plants,” Brand said. “No matter how one assesses the risks of nuclear power, it is simply not economical to rely on new nuclear plants,” he said in the pro-nuclear NZZ on Oct. 21, 2021.

In countries with a functioning market, no new nuclear power plants are being built. When in doubt, it always helps to look at EDF’s share price, which has fallen massively over the long term, to assess the market chances of the nuclear renaissance announced by President Macron.

“Bread and games” with artificially low nuclear electricity prices can work in election campaigns. Low-cost, risk-free electricity is generated today with photovoltaics and wind energy. (AM/hcn)

August 24, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics, Reference | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »