US announces more than $2 billion package for Ukraine
BY BRAD DRESS – 07/02/24, https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4752120-biden-administration-lloyd-austin-2-million-ukraine-aid-package/
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced a $2.3 billion security assistance package for Ukraine ahead of a meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Tuesday.
The package will include critical air defense interceptors and other weapons. A spokesperson for the Pentagon said more details on the package would be made available soon.
Austin met with Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov at the Pentagon on Tuesday and underscored the U.S. commitment to defending the country against a Russian invasion.
“Ukraine is in a tough fight,” Austin said in remarks ahead of the meeting, adding “make no mistake, Ukraine is not alone.”
The Pentagon chief also noted that the U.S. has signed a 10-year bilateral security agreement with Ukraine, providing Kyiv with defense cooperation guarantees over a decade. He added that he would discuss with Umerov additional ways to strengthen the partnership.
The U.S. has announced billions of dollars of assistance to Ukraine since the last congressional package of some $60 billion was approved in April. That legislation came after months of delays, giving Russia the advantage on the battlefield before more U.S. aid began arriving on the battlefield.
Ukrainian troops are fighting across the 600-mile front against Russian forces, including in the northeastern Kharkiv region, where Moscow opened a new front in May.
Israel Has Forcibly Displaced 1.9 Million Palestinians in Gaza
Israel’s assault has displaced over 1 million people just since May, a UN human rights official said.
SCHEERPOST, By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUT, July 2, 2024
srael’s ongoing assault in Gaza has now forcibly displaced 1.9 million Palestinians, a UN humanitarian official reported on Tuesday as Israel forced another round of evacuations for hundreds of thousands of people across southern and central Gaza.
Israel’s brutal assault and humanitarian blockade has turned Gaza into an “abyss of suffering” and a “maelstrom of human misery,” said Sigrid Kaag, UN Senior Humanitarian and Reconstruction Coordinator for Gaza, in an address to the UN Security Council.
“Following the Israeli offenses against Rafah, since the sixth of May, over 1 million people have been displaced once again, desperately seeking shelter and safety,” said Kaag. “One point nine million people are now displaced across Gaza.”
This amounts to over 86 percent of the 2.2 million person population of Gaza displaced — though the proportion may be larger when the number of Palestinians who have been killed, are missing under the rubble or have died in ways that officials aren’t recording are subtracted from the population estimates. The number of displaced people is up from 1.7 million Palestinians who UN officials said had been forced out of their homes in earlier estimates……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Meanwhile, Israeli forces are also fiercely attacking Gaza City in the north. This has sparked an “exodus” from the eastern part of the city, the UN reported, after days of intense bombardments and tanks entering the region.
According to the UN, about 84,000 Palestinians have been displaced by this massacre, with most families having already fled areas multiple times, their supplies and energy dwindling amid Israel’s intensified famine campaign.
UNRWA’s communications head Louise Wateridge reported from a recent trip to Gaza that the region is “apocalyptic — most people have lost their homes, either completely or partially, and have to flee with very few belongings; essentially what they can carry in their hands.” https://scheerpost.com/2024/07/03/israel-has-forcibly-displaced-1-9-million-palestinians-in-gaza/
Tory accused of exaggerating chances of new nuclear plant
Martin Shipton, Net Zero Investor 2nd July 2024
The Conservative candidate for the three-way marginal seat of Ynys Môn has been accused of exaggerating the possibility of a new nuclear power station being developed on the island.
Dr Jonathan Dean, a trustee of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, submitted a freedom of information request to the UK Government’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), seeking a copy of the evaluation report that Wylfa, on Ynys Môn, should be selected as the next large nuclear site after Sizewell C.
He says he was surprised to be told that Wylfa had not been confirmed as the next big nuclear site.
Instead, he was told by DESNZ: “To date, while Wylfa has been announced as the preferred location for a further large nuclear reactor, final decisions on sites and technologies have not been made.”……………………………………………………….
‘Firm commitment’
A leaflet distributed as part of Ms Crosbie’s campaign states: “I am delighted that after much hard work on May 22 2024 the UK Government gave a firm commitment to a gigawatt new nuclear plant at Wylfa………………..
Dr Dean said: “Maybe the announcement was just to boost Virginia Crosbie’s election chances after all?”………………………………
Net Zero Investor 2nd July 2024
https://www.netzeroinvestor.net/news-and-views/nuclear-energy-appetite-growing-but-challenges-remain
French nuclear giant scraps SMR plans due to soaring costs, will start over.
Another Small Modular Nuclear Reactor project goes down the toilet
This time it’s that great nuclear poster boy France that is facing the humiliation and embarrassment of wasting billions on “New Nuclear”
Last time it was the USA with the NuScale fiasco
Giles Parkinson Jul 2, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/french-nuclear-giant-scraps-smr-plans-due-to-soaring-costs-will-start-over/
The French nuclear giant EdF, the government owned company that manages the country’s vast fleet of nuclear power stations, has reportedly scrapped its plans to develop a new design for small nuclear reactors because of fears of soaring costs.
EdF, which is now fully government owned after facing potential bankruptcy due to delays and massive cost over-runs at its latest generation large scale nuclear plants, had reportedly been working on a new design for SMRs for the last four years.
The French investigative outlet L’Informé reported on Monday that EdF had scrapped its new internal SMR design – dubbed Nuward – because of engineering problems and cost overruns. It cited company sources as saying EdF would now partner with other companies to use “simpler” technologies in an attempt to avoid delays and budget overruns.
Reuters confirmed the development, citing an email from a company spokesman that confirmed the program had been abandoned after the basic design had been completed.
“The reorientation consists of developing a design built exclusively from proven technological bricks. It will offer better conditions for success by facilitating technical feasibility,” an EDF spokesperson told Reuters via email.
Continue readingWhy Julian Assange couldn’t outrun the Espionage Act
the grave threat the Espionage Act poses to journalism and the First Amendment
SOTT, Jordan Howell The FIRE, Wed, 26 Jun 2024
Julian Assange spent seven years in self-exile in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy avoiding arrest, and five more in prison, for publishing classified documents on WikiLeaks.
Julian Assange is a free man, and one of the most contentious press freedom controversies in living memory may finally be coming to a close.
The WikiLeaks founder reached a plea deal with the Department of Justice on Monday after spending five years in an English prison fighting extradition to the United States. Federal officials sought to charge Assange with conspiracy to obtain and disclose national security information under the Espionage Act of 1917.
Assange and WikiLeaks shocked the world in 2010 by publishing hundreds of thousands of secret military documents and diplomatic cables related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were leaked by Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. Months later, Assange was on the run and Manning was in jail.
Assange claimed that by receiving and publishing confidential information, what he did was no different than the type of routine news reporting that journalists around the world engage in every day. As the Supreme Court ruled in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), better known as “The Pentagon Papers” case, publishing leaked documents is protected under the First Amendment.
FIRE has long opposed use of the Espionage Act to curtail the rights of journalists to source information. And in December 2022, FIRE signed an open letter organized by the Committee to Protect Journalists along with 20 other civil liberties groups calling on the federal government to drop its charges against Assange.
“We are united . . . in our view that the criminal case against him poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the United States and abroad,” we argued. “[J]ournalists routinely engage in much of the conduct described in the indictment: speaking with sources, asking for clarification or more documentation, and receiving and publishing official secrets. News organizations frequently and necessarily publish classified information in order to inform the public of matters of profound public significance.”
Assange’s 12 year ordeal, including seven years in self-exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London before his arrest and imprisonment, underscores the continued threat that the century-old Espionage Act still poses to civil liberties today — and not just in the United States. Assange is not a U.S. citizen, nor was he ever a resident. But because of modern extradition treaties, there were few places in the world where he could travel to escape the Act’s reach,
Under the terms of Monday’s deal, Assange pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to 62 months incarceration, but with credit for time served, according to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.
Ultimately, freedom of the press is what was at stake with the government’s case against Assange. It was never only about him. The precedent that would have been set by his extradition and trial would have sent a chilling message to journalists across the country and the world: You can run, but you can’t hide from the Espionage Act.
What is the Espionage Act?……………………………………………………………………………………….Based on the Defense Secrets Act of 1911, the Espionage Act of 1917 included much stiffer penalties — including the death penalty — for sharing secret or confidential information or otherwise interfering with the operations of the U.S. military.
The Espionage Act made it a crime to obtain information regarding national defense “with intent or reason to believe” that doing so would hurt the U.S. or to advantage another country. While subsequent amendments and court decisions have refined its language and scope, its core purpose remains the same.
Espionage Act and the Supreme Court
The law was immediately controversial because its use was not limited to actual acts of espionage. Rather, the Espionage Act allowed the government to clamp down on anyone who opposed the war effort.
In Schenck v. United States, in 1919, the Supreme Court upheld the conspiracy conviction against socialist Charles Schenck under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-war leaflets that urged people to boycott the draft.
The problem with the Court’s ruling in Schenck, as subsequent decisions would affirm, is that Schenk’s speech was not calling for violence or even civil disobedience. Rather, his speech was precisely the kind of political expression that decades of subsequent Supreme Court decisions would ultimately uphold. Numerous convictions under the Espionage Act would make their way to the Court, including that of socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs, who was arrested for giving a speech opposing the war.
Since then, one of the most nefarious uses of the Espionage Act has been to silence journalists. At least insofar as publishing the leaked documents on the Wikileaks website, what Assange did was little different than what The New York Times and The Washington Post did in 1971 when they published and reported on thousands of pages from a classified report about the war in Vietnam.
……………………………………….As the Supreme Court has ruled, freedom of the press is a foundational principle, enshrined in the Bill of Rights. And though Julian Assange is finally free, FIRE continues to have serious concerns about the grave threat the Espionage Act poses to journalism and the First Amendment. https://www.sott.net/article/492768-Why-Julian-Assange-couldnt-outrun-the-Espionage-Act
You Don’t Want to Live in America’s ‘Nuclear Sponge’
military planners often describe ICBMs as a “nuclear sponge” that would soak up hundreds of Russian warheads as they tried to destroy the missiles before they could launch.
People living in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado may not think of their homes as “nuclear sponges” but that is one of the primary justifications for ICBMs today………. . ICBMs are sitting ducks
By Joseph Cirincione, National Security Analyst, 3 July 24, https://www.newsweek.com/you-dont-want-live-americas-nuclear-sponge-opinion-1919646
ou have to be a real optimist to think that we can keep thousands of nuclear weapons in fallible human hands indefinitely and nothing terrible will happen. Something terrible will happen—and it could mean the end of human civilization.
The risks are growing. Today, nine nations hold over 12,000 nuclear weapons, each many times more powerful than those used on Japan. The United States and Russia have most of them—about 90 percent of the global total—but China may be trying to catch up.
The fear that China might increase its nuclear arsenal from some 500 to 1,000 weapons has fueled calls for America to abandon all arms control limits and vastly increase its stockpile of some 5,000 weapons. In fact, massive new programs to build a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, submarines and missiles were well under way before China began its build up—and may well have triggered China’s move.
The cost of this new nuclear arms race is high. A new report shows that global spending on nuclear weapons jumped last year—and that the United States accounted for 80 percent of that increase.
The global costs and the U.S. share will grow. This year, U.S. spending climbed again to more than $70 billion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the government will spend over $750 billion on nuclear weapons over the next 10 years. The total modernization cost will likely be over $2 trillion. Add in the $30 billion a year spent on programs to try to intercept ballistic missiles and the cost goes from unimaginable to unaffordable.
It gets worse. The Air Force just disclosed that the price of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) has jumped 37 percent. Originally, the Air Force claimed that replacing the existing force of 400 Minuteman III missiles would cost only $62 billion. That rose to $95 billion, then to more than $125 billion (plus tens of billions more for the nuclear warheads). In a new report, the watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, warns that the price tag could hit $315 billion.
For a family, a cost increase of 37 percent on a house or car they want to buy would certainly change their minds. Even for the Pentagon, this hike was “a critical breach” of cost projections, triggering a rare report to Congress.
This is likely why defense contractors are working furiously with their Congressional supporters to defend the program, supplying members with talking points and briefings, in addition to the generous contributions that flow into their campaign coffers. Members in the few states that have nuclear bases also do not want to lose the considerable economic benefits they provide.
Thus, Sen. Deb Fischer, a Republican from Nebraska, home to the Strategic Command, pleads in her recent piece for Newsweek, to continue the programs no matter what the cost. She argues that “Our ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are indispensable. …by virtue of their location in our heartland, [they] are also unlikely to be targeted by enemy attacks.”
That would be a surprise to military planners who often describe ICBMs as a “nuclear sponge” that would soak up hundreds of Russian warheads as they tried to destroy the missiles before they could launch. This would complicate an adversary’s planning so severely that it would discourage any attack, the theory goes.
People living in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado may not think of their homes as “nuclear sponges” but that is one of the primary justifications for ICBMs today. Formerly valued as being more accurate and faster to launch than missiles from submarines, that is no longer the case. As the Taxpayers report notes. “Both ballistic missile submarines and nuclear-armed aircraft carry more accurate and powerful nuclear weapons than they used to,” allowing them to destroy even the most hardened target. Meanwhile, “the survivability of U.S. ICBMs has steadily declined as U.S. adversaries have developed more powerful and accurate nuclear weapons.”
Submarines are undetectable and bombers can be scrambled. ICBMs are sitting ducks that must be launched on warning of an enemy attack, stressing their human controllers to decide within minutes whether to launch Armageddon. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry says we must eliminate these relics of the Cold War, calling them, “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world. They could even trigger an accidental nuclear war.”
There have been dozens of close calls in the nuclear age, most caused by the need to launch these hulking missiles so quickly. Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA), Don Beyer (D-VA) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) will hold a public hearing July 24 to examine the troubled missile program and “raise the alarm about our unsustainable, reckless nuclear posture.”
“We must confront the challenges before us, not by building ever more dangerous weapons,” says Garamendi, “but by placing the same priority on effective arms control and risk reduction measures that we currently place on modernization.”
This hearing may be our last, best chance to evaluate the risks of putting more nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert before it is too late.
Joe Cirincione is the author or editor of seven books and over a thousand articles on nuclear policy and national security.
Russia might restart the Zaporizhzhia Ukrainian nuclear plant it seized, our new report shows
Charles Digges, Bellona, 2 July 24
“……………………………………………….. Russia has taken over the plant with its own technicians while coercing the Ukrainian workers who remain to sign contracts with Rosenergoatom, the branch of Rosatom, responsible for day-to-day operations at the 11 nuclear plants within Russia. The Kremlin has also spun off another commercial tendril from Rosatom to oversee the management of the captive plant.
But should a potential restart continue to unfold, the principal nuclear threat of Putin’s war on Ukraine could soon be an atomic energy station operating on the front lines of a protracted war.
Since early in the invasion, all of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant’s reactors have been placed in various states of shutdown. This was a critical safety measure, urged by the IAEA and agreed to by both Moscow and Kyiv, which would dampen the impact of a radiological disaster should any of the reactors suffer a catastrophic strike.
In this setting, the content of short-lived and highly dangerous radionuclides like iodine-131 in uranium fuel is much lower than if the plant was active because they have partially, or even completely decayed since September 2022. But once the reactors are restarted, these radionuclides will once again begin to form — making their spread into the environment a possibility should reactor containments be ruptured.
Despite the obvious risks, recent statements from Russian officials and, more concretely, the activities of Russia’s technical oversight agency within Ukraine, indicate that the plant’s Russian occupiers could move to restart at least one of the reactor units sometime this year — thus removing this important assurance against disaster.
To restart a reactor, Russian technicians would first have to guarantee an ample and stable supply of cooling water. This task was made more difficult by the destruction of the nearby Khakovka Dam in June 2023, which compromised several reservoirs used for precisely that purpose.
But over the past year, the Russian side has announced plans to replenish the plant’s damaged cooling ponds, which would then be capable of supplying up to three reactors.
Further, Russian technicians have begun to rewire the power grid to divert the electricity produced by the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant toward Russia and the occupied territories of Ukraine. Satellite images of the Rosatom-controlled Zaporizhzhia Terminal Power Plant, which connects the nuclear plant to the Ukrainian grid, show evidence of efforts to shift powerlines away from Ukraine and into the occupied regions.
The plant has also recently played host to high-profile guests from Moscow. In April, Alexander Trembitsky, the head of Russia’s Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Supervision, Rostekhnadzor) visited the plant to review personnel certifications and work toward extending the lifespan of the reactors. Rostekhnadzor officials have also been codifying licensing requirements for the plant to operate under Russian purview and reviewing various plant systems since the start of the year.
That same month Sergei Kiriyenko, a former CEO of Rosatom and one of Putin’s first deputies, visited Enerhodar, where many plant workers live.
This flurry of activity followed a March meeting in Sochi between Putin, current Rosatom CEO Alexei Likhachev, and IAEA director general Rafael Grossi, during which, according to media reports, Putin stated his intentions to restart Zaporizhzhia’s reactors. This remains diplomatically unconfirmed by other sources, but recent events seem to bear those intentions out.
Kyiv vociferously protested Russia’s efforts to disconnect a nuclear plant that once supplied 5700 megawatts, or about 10%, of Ukraine’s entire electricity needs. There is little doubt that the military could fight back against any efforts to redirect this energy.
Still, efforts to relaunch the reactors may prove to be more effort than they are worth.
Fresh nuclear fuel and spare parts would have to be transported across war zones. The pump station enhancing cooling water supplies is being constructed under conditions of military conflict. Powerlines will have to be rerouted under fire. All of this will cost billions of rubles, which, in our analysis, will hardly be recouped by tariffs on the power one or two Zaporizhzhia reactors would produce. ………. https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2024-07-russia-might-restart-the-ukrainian-nuclear-plant-it-seized
Talent Shortage Threatens Europe’s Nuclear Renaissance
As many countries in Europe look to boost their nuclear power capacities
and build more reactors, companies face a workforce challenge as many of
the skilled force are retiring while younger generations choose energy jobs
in solar and wind. European countries and companies planning major
expansion in nuclear fleets are struggling to fill in thousands of skilled
engineering jobs that would support the construction of nuclear reactors,
which take years to complete. Companies in France are hiring back retirees
and are collaborating with colleges and universities to promote jobs in the
nuclear power sector.
Oil Price 3rd July 2024
SCOTTISH GREENS WILL OPPOSE ALL PLANS FOR NEW NUCLEAR ENERGY
Nuclear energy will leave a toxic and costly legacy.
Every vote for the Scottish Greens is a vote to oppose new nuclear energy, says the party’s Co-leader, Lorna Slater MSP, who said any expansion would leave “a costly and dangerous legacy.”
The party’s manifesto commits to opposing all new nuclear power, including the expansion or renewal of Scotland’s remaining nuclear power station at Torness.
The UK Tory government has pledged to triple nuclear power by 2050, and has announced plans for the biggest nuclear expansion for 70 years. Similarly Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has promised to expand it, with Mr Starmer calling it a “critical part” of his energy plan.
This follows news that the new Hinkley Point C reactor will now cost up to £46 billion and is expected to come online in 2031 rather than 2017.
In May 2024 the outgoing Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, said that he hoped the next UK government would work with anti-independence parties in Holyrood to impose a new nuclear reactor on Scotland.
Ms Slater said: “More nuclear power would leave a legacy of debt and radioactive waste for generations to come. Backing it is not just a distraction, it undermines our journey to 100% renewable energy. The Scottish Greens will oppose any attempts to expand or impose it.
“The disastrous mismanagement of Hinkley Point C tells us everything we need to know about how unreliable and expensive nuclear has become. It is now running 14 years behind schedule and costs have inflated to £46 billion – seven times Scotland’s entire annual capital budget.
“Even though Hinkley is on the South coast of England, Scottish households will be paying for this travesty for decades. It’s outrageous that instead of learning from this catastrophic mismanagement the Tories and Labour are committing to pouring even more of our money into new nuclear power.
“The Tory and Labour nuclear fantasies will do nothing for our climate and will leave future generations with a costly and dangerous legacy to clean up.
Scotland and the UK has a vast potential for renewable energy, but we need to invest in it. The huge sums of money being wasted on nuclear energy could be far better spent on rapidly expanding our green industries, delivering 100% renewable energy and investing in the jobs of the future.”
From the Scottish Greens manifesto
“New nuclear is outrageously expensive, unnecessary, dependent on the expertise and assets of foreign governments, and detracts from renewables. It will also leave generations to come with a costly and dangerous responsibility to keep the waste safe.
The disastrous Hinkley Point C project has been hit by a string of delays, and is now estimated to be costing an eye watering £46 billion, yet there is still no confidence as to when it will be online, and now Westminster are threatening to impose a new plant on Scotland against the policy of the Scottish Government.
We cannot afford to make the mistake of commissioning another new nuclear power plant. The Scottish Greens will oppose new nuclear power, and the expansion or renewal of Scotland’s remaining nuclear power station at Torness.
Unable to effectively operate its lone existing nuclear reactor, New Brunswick is betting on advanced options.
The International Panel found that sodium-cooled reactors proved expensive to build, complex to operate, prone to malfunctions, and difficult and expensive to repair. Sodium reacts violently with water and burns if exposed to air. Major sodium fires have occurred in previous reactors, often leading to lengthy shutdowns.
If NB Power needs outside assistance with a conventional reactor it has owned and operated for more than 40 years, one might question the wisdom of building two more featuring untested designs. Mr. Holland’s replacement as energy minister, Hugh Flemming, must now decide how comfortable he is with the province’s SMR ambitions.
Perhaps the most fundamental risk to New Brunswick’s SMR push is that the province can’t afford it.
MATTHEW MCCLEARN, JULY 2, 2024 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-new-brunswick-nuclear-reactor-technology-arc-clean-moltex-energy/
Mike Holland was among Canada’s leading evangelists for small modular nuclear reactors. During his tenure as New Brunswick’s energy minister, from 2018 to when he stepped down on June 20, he vigorously supported plans by the province’s Crown utility, NB Power, to construct two different small reactor designs from startup companies: U.S.-based ARC Clean Technology and Britain’s Moltex Energy. This represents Canada’s most ambitious – and perhaps riskiest – foray into bleeding-edge nuclear technology.
In an interview shortly before he resigned to pursue an opportunity in the private sector, Mr. Holland recalled how SMRs arrived on his agenda soon after he assumed office. He began exploring what advanced reactors could mean for decarbonizing the province’s electricity sector and growing its economy, and concluded New Brunswick could become a hub for nuclear design and manufacturing, and export reactors around the world.
“I saw the opportunity for New Brunswick to not just participate, but be a leader in this,” he said. “I am someone that loves to be on the cutting edge.”
His enthusiasm and risk tolerance proved a boon for ARC and Moltex, two tiny startups that have neither licensed nor constructed a commercial reactor. Under Mr. Holland’s leadership, New Brunswick became an incubator and helped the companies attract government funds to continue their work.
But NB Power is already struggling with persistent problems at its lone existing reactor at Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station. It has been negotiating a partnership with Ontario Power Generation that could see the latter assume partial ownership and help fix the ailing plant.
If NB Power needs outside assistance with a conventional reactor it has owned and operated for more than 40 years, one might question the wisdom of building two more featuring untested designs. Mr. Holland’s replacement as energy minister, Hugh Flemming, must now decide how comfortable he is with the province’s SMR ambitions.
Unconventional thinking
Nearly all of the more than 400 nuclear reactors operating today use water to cool their highly radioactive cores. Water also acts as a “moderator,” slowing down the high-energy neutrons produced by nuclear fission. Though water-cooled reactors have dominated for decades, they cost huge sums to build and produce waste that remains hazardous for countless human lifetimes. They’re vulnerable to severe (albeit rare) accidents that can render surrounding areas uninhabitable.
Virtually every SMR is marketed as addressing these and other shortcomings – and most have ditched water as coolant and moderator.
According to documents released by New Brunswick’s energy ministry through the province’s freedom of information legislation to researcher Susan O’Donnell, and provided to The Globe and Mail, in 2017 NB Power reviewed dozens of SMRs it read about in nuclear industry publications. It came up with a short list of five, which it later narrowed to ARC and Moltex, and enticed both companies to set up headquarters in Saint John.
ARC and Moltex are pursuing what the industry calls “fast” neutron reactors, so named because they lack a moderator. The ARC-100 reactor would be cooled using liquid sodium metal and consume enriched uranium metal fuel. Moltex’s Stable Salt Reactor-Wasteburner (SSR-W), meanwhile, would use molten salt fuel placed in fuel assemblies similar to those in conventional reactors.
The SSR-W would require its own fuel reprocessing plant called WATSS (short for Waste to Stable Salt), which would convert Point Lepreau’s spent fuel into new fuel. For NB Power, that’s a major attraction: As of last summer, Point Lepreau had more than 170,000 Candu spent fuel bundles. Moltex says that’s enough to power its reactor for 60 years.
In May, 2019, NB Power sent a letter to Mr. Holland and Premier Blaine Higgs urging them to support fast reactors. The utility told its government masters that there was enough room at Point Lepreau for both reactors and that they could be up and running by 2030.
“These two technologies have different market applications and there is no downside to letting both of them work through the process,” the letter stated.
New Brunswick’s latest energy plan suggests electricity consumption will nearly double in the next few decades. NB Power’s challenge is to satisfy that demand while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions; Lori Clark, its chief executive, has cast SMRs as playing an important role in the utility’s efforts to reach net zero by 2035.
What New Brunswick covets most, however, is a shot of economic adrenalin.
Even optimists expect that SMR demonstration units will be too expensive to be economically attractive. Multiple units must be built to exploit economies of scale and reduce costs.
NB Power is counting on that. According to documents released under the federal Access to Information Act, the utility expects the first ARC-100 would be followed by 11 more units by mid-century. By then, up to 24 would be built in Canada, and the same number in other countries. And the first SSR-W would lead to 11 more built across Canada and two dozen more in the United States, Britain and Eastern Europe. If that happened, they’d be among the most successful models in history.
NB Power thought more than half of the components would be manufactured in New Brunswick. It also enthused about royalty payments on reactor sales, “potentially worth billions of dollars.”
Technical risks
But to realize any of that, New Brunswick’s SMR program must overcome technical challenges that have plagued the nuclear industry from its earliest days.
Edwin Lyman, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, has warned policy makers about the pitfalls of betting on “advanced” reactor designs, which he has studied over many years. “Developing new designs that are clearly superior to light water reactors overall is a formidable challenge, as improvements in one respect can create or exacerbate problems in another,” he wrote in a 2021 report.
Fast reactors, which originated in the earliest years of the nuclear age, bear this out. The U.S., Britain, the Soviet Union, France, Germany, Japan and India all pursued so-called “fast breeder” reactors that could produce more plutonium fuel than they consumed. A report that examined the history of those reactors, produced in 2010 by the International Panel on Fissile Materials, a group of arms control and non-proliferation experts, found member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development collectively invested about US$50-billion researching breeder reactors. Outside the OECD, Russia and India also spent heavily.
They didn’t have much to show for it. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are only two fast reactors currently generating electricity – both in Russia. The International Panel found that sodium-cooled reactors proved expensive to build, complex to operate, prone to malfunctions, and difficult and expensive to repair. Sodium reacts violently with water and burns if exposed to air. Major sodium fires have occurred in previous reactors, often leading to lengthy shutdowns.
As for molten salt reactors, there have only been two experimental exemplars, the most recent of which operated in the 1960s. Mr. Lyman’s 2021 report said molten salts were highly corrosive to many materials typically used in reactor construction. Moreover, “liquid nuclear fuels introduce numerous additional safety, environmental and proliferation risks.” Molten salt reactors likely couldn’t be built before the 2040s at the earliest, he concluded.
In addition to confronting such technical challenges, New Brunswick’s strategy also presupposes that reprocessing of spent fuel will be permitted and affordable. But a report published last year by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, the industry-controlled organization tasked with disposing of Canada’s reactor waste, was skeptical on both counts.
NB Power is also counting on circumstances that are beyond its control. According to a letter signed by former CEO Keith Cronkhite in 2020 and released under the Access to Information Act, New Brunswick’s plan hinges on Ontario and other provinces building multiple BWRX-300s. (The letter was sent to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.) If they do not, “SMR companies based in New Brunswick will not be able to attract private investment necessary to ever deploy a new reactor,” Mr. Cronkhite’s letter predicted.
The SMR plan is already falling behind schedule. At a rate hearing in June before the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board, Brad Coady, vice-president of strategic partnerships and business development, said NB Power believes it is no longer possible to have SMRs operating by 2030; the earliest date for the first unit has been pushed back to 2032 or 2033.
Delays will have consequences, because NB Power needs options to replace its coal-fired generation while at the same time satisfying growing demand for electricity. The utility, he said, has been studying alternative scenarios “if we don’t have them in time.”
Paying for it
Perhaps the most fundamental risk to New Brunswick’s SMR push is that the province can’t afford it.
Last year, ARC and Moltex each estimated that developing their reactors would cost around $500-million per company. NB Power is Canada’s most heavily indebted utility, and its budgets must be approved by the province’s Energy and Utilities Board. It has limited ability to pay for crucial early steps such as studies necessary to establish what the environmental consequences of the SMRs might be. In published reports, NB Power has acknowledged that its research and development efforts might have to be sacrificed to meet debt-reduction targets.
David Coon, leader of New Brunswick’s Green Party, said NB Power faces huge capital spending to retire its Belledune coal-fired generating plant and refurbish its Mactaquac hydroelectric dam and transmission lines.
“That is why they’re really not putting much into this,” he said. “Their approach has been, well, if we get a new nuclear plant out of this that that doesn’t really cost us much of anything, then bonus!”
ARC and Moltex also don’t have the money. In late June, ARC parted ways with CEO William Labbe and laid off an undisclosed number of staff – a move some observers said was likely due to a shortage of funds. Mr. Chronkite’s 2020 letter warned that the two SMR developers were small startups that couldn’t afford to do work using their own resources, and were at immediate risk of insolvency.
“Without federal support this year to the SMR developers in New Brunswick, one or both companies are expected to close their offices in the next year,” Mr. Cronkhite’s letter stated.
Indeed, New Brunswick officials have counted on continuing and generous support from Canadian taxpayers. In his letter, Mr. Cronkhite called on the federal government to provide $70.5-million that year to ARC and Moltex – and more than $100-million the following year – to “keep the SMR development option in New Brunswick viable.” In 2022, the two companies would need another $91-million.
Ottawa obliged, but only partly. It gave Moltex $50.5-million in 2021. The federal government also provided ARC $7-million last year. The lobbying efforts continue: When NB Power board vice-chair Andrew MacGillivray received his mandate letter in May, 2023, it instructed him to “support efforts to acquire federal funding” for the SMRs.
New Brunswick’s own history suggests the risks inherent in counting on boundless federal support.
Andrew Secord, an economics professor at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, has studied decision-making in the 1970s that led to the construction of the original Point Lepreau reactor. In a 2020 paper, he detailed how Point Lepreau arose in part from an export-led strategy under which multiple large reactors would be built and their electricity exported to New England. NB Power (then known as the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, or NBEPC) first focused on building interconnections with New England and then pivoted to building reactors.
This strategy failed by 1972, but by that point NBEPC was unwilling to change course. Over the next three years, it assumed ever greater risks as potential partners failed to materialize.
“NBEPC managers continued along the nuclear path, exhibiting higher risk behaviour in the process,” Mr. Secord wrote. “As NBEPC executives spent more time and resources on the nuclear option, their personal attachment and the associated institutional commitment increased.”
Mr. Coon said New Brunswick’s SMR plan so far has cost the provincial and federal governments only around $100-million. But it could start costing taxpayers and ratepayers “much more money” if things progress further.
“It seems like we haven’t learned our lesson in New Brunswick,” he said.
U.S. Congress Votes To Bar State Department From Citing Gazan Health Ministry
If passed into law, US diplomats would be unable to discuss casualty figures from Palestinian sources that are generally considered credible.
by Kyle Anzalone June 27, 2024 https://news.antiwar.com/2024/06/27/house-votes-to-bar-state-department-from-citing-gazan-health-ministry/
During the debate of the State Department funding bill, the House added a provision that would bar American diplomats from citing statistics from the Gaza Health Ministry. The amendment would prevent American diplomats from discussing the casualty figures produced by the Palestinian agency.
On Thursday, the House voted 269-144 for an amendment to the Department of State appropriations bill proposed by a bipartisan group led by Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL). The provision “prohibits funds appropriated by this act to be made available for the State Department to cite statistics obtained from the Gaza Health Ministry.”
The amendment received bipartisan support. All but 14 Republicans voted yes, with Reps. Paul Gosar (AZ) and Matt Rosendale (MT) are the only no votes. The Democrats split support 69-114. The Democratic leadership in the House elected not to endorse or oppose the amendment.
During Israel’s nearly nine-month-long onslaught in Gaza, the Health Ministry has recorded nearly 38,000 deaths and 85,000 injuries. Many of those injured have life-altering wounds. The head of the UN Palestinian Aid Agency (UNRWA) estimates that over 2,000 children, or nearly ten per day, have lost legs since October 7.
Prior to Israel’s most recent military campaign in Gaza, the casualty figures were generally considered accurate and regularly cited by Western media. During Israel’s “Swords of Iron” operations, the corporate press has started to slant cover of those numbers by asserting Hamas runs the health ministry whenever the numbers are reported.
However, many human rights groups and officials believe the official figures are an undercount. Save the Children estimates that in addition to the 15,000 dead Palestinian children counted by the health ministry, an additional 4,000 are uncounted because their bodies have not been recovered.
During the debate over Moskowitz’s amendment, Rep Rashida Tlaib blasted the provisions as being a part of the decades-long coordinated effort by the House to “erase Palestinians from existence.”
“Today, we are witnessing the apartheid Israeli government carry out a genocide in real-time. This amendment is an attempt to hide it.” She added, “My colleagues don’t even want to acknowledge that Palestinians exist at all.”
Why cost should not be an obstacle to compensating nuclear survivors
By Alicia Sanders-Zakre, Susi Snyder | July 1, 2024, https://thebulletin.org/2024/07/why-cost-should-not-be-an-obstacle-to-compensating-nuclear-survivors/?utm_source=Newsletter+&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter07012024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_CompensatingNuclearSurvivors_07012024
Passing an extended and expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) would be an enormous victory for those affected by US nuclear weapons testing and development who will receive compensation from the legislation. A proposed revised bill would include many communities formerly left out from the compensation program, including additional residents of Arizona, Nevada and Utah, for the first time, residents of Colorado, Idaho, Guam, Montana and New Mexico, uranium miners after 1971, veterans of nuclear waste clean-up in the Marshall Islands, and St. Louis area residents exposed to nuclear waste. The bill, originally estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost $147 billion over 10 years, was cut down to cost $50 billion over 10 years, due to concerns by members of Congress about the expense. A RECA bill has gained overwhelming support in the Senate, but it has yet to be passed by the House, in part due to ongoing concerns about the price tag.
Our research shows that more resources exist and should be directed to this important effort, in the United States and internationally, where many nuclear survivors still wait for justice. In our report, we found that nuclear-armed countries spent $91.4 billion on nuclear weapons in 2023 alone. That’s nearly $3,000 every second. The United States spent more than half of that total – $51.5 billion or $1,633 per second. In the five years that we have done this research, from 2019 to 2023, governments have spent a total of $387 billion on nuclear arsenals. The United States alone spent more than $212 billion of that total.
The amount that the United States and other nuclear-armed governments have put towards addressing the harmful legacy of nuclear weapons for their citizens pales by comparison. Since RECA was passed in 1990, the United States has put $2.67 billion into one-time settlements to compensate those whom the United States considered eligible. To address the nuclear legacy of its testing in the Marshall Islands, the United States gave $150 million to establish a Nuclear Claims Tribunal in 1987, but has not provided further funds explicitly for this purpose since.
Internationally, compensation for survivors also comes up short. Russian nuclear test veterans receive one-time compensation for harm to health of 22,102 roubles ($245 as of February 1, 2024) as well as small monthly stipends for food. In 2023, Russia spent 710.5 billion roubles ($8.3 billion) on its nuclear arsenal. In France, CIVEN, le Comité d’Indemnisation des Victimes des Essais Nucléaires, provided 14.9 million euros ($15.9 million) to victims of its nuclear testing in Algeria and French Polynesia in 2022. Last year, France spent 5.6 billion euros ($6.1 billion) on its nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom provided a “full and final” settlement payment of £20 million to Australia in 1993 to remediate former nuclear tests sites there, in comparison to the £6.5 billion ($8.1 billion) it spent on its nuclear arsenal in 2023.
It is no coincidence that, around the world, formerly colonized and Indigenous populations were the first to be bombed and the last to receive recognition and compensation. Existing programs rarely address the multifold harms of nuclear testing beyond physical harm from radiation, such as the psychological and economic toll of displacement, deprivation of traditional ways of life or the fear of children also suffering the scars of nuclear weapons.
But international efforts to address nuclear harms, grounded in human rights principles, have increased in recent years. In July 2017, 122 governments adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The treaty includes Articles 6 and 7, creating for the first time an international collective effort to address the impacts of nuclear weapons use and testing on people and the environment. States affected by nuclear weapons use and testing that have joined the treaty—such as Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Fiji, and New Zealand—take the lead in identifying needs for affected people and for environmental remediation in their countries and designing national plans of action and structures to address those needs. All governments that have joined this treaty pledge to help if they are able. States are currently discussing establishing an international trust fund to support this work.
Providing adequate assistance to those suffering from nuclear harm and beginning to remediate contaminated environments will cost money. It will also take time. But the cost is not an excuse to forgo necessary nuclear justice programs. Our research clearly shows that ever-growing budgets to build and rebuild nuclear arsenals are readily approved by every nuclear-armed government, while funds to help those suffering are a pittance in comparison.
The exorbitant funding poured into producing and maintaining weapons of mass destruction—as those who have borne the brunt of their impacts are dismissed—constitutes a gross dereliction of duty by the nuclear-armed countries. Governments must work together at the national and international level to address the multifaceted harms that nuclear weapons production and testing have inflicted on survivors and the environment. Extending and expanding RECA would be a good place to start. House leaders should stop stalling and start acting.
Most important issue facing US, world, largely absent from presidential debate.
Chances for a serious debate on America’s despicable wars in Ukraine and Gaza at the next debate? Zero
Biden claimed Hamas must be destroyed before there can be any discussion of a Palestinian nation. But Biden, like Netanyahu, remains in denial of Israeli military leaders who tell Netanyahu, you cannot destroy Hamas because it’s an idea…the idea to end Israeli Apartheid and establish a sovereign and genocide free Palestinian state.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL , 30 June 24, https://heartlandprogressive.blogspot.com/
Chances for a serious debate on America’s despicable wars in Ukraine and Gaza at the next debate? Zero.
Americans concerned about ending 2 catastrophic wars the US is funding in Ukraine and Gaza were sorely disappointed by the Biden, Trump presidential debate.
Neither candidate offered a single coherent nor encouraging statement to explain why we’re squandering upwards of $200 billion to maintain these wars in perpetuity. Millions dead, wounded, homeless or refugees have made no dent on the conscience of either man.
Trump’s statements Ukraine were delusional. He claimed he’s so tough, Russia would not have dared attack Ukraine had he been president at the time. Same goes for Hamas attacking Israel. He topped that by charging he’d end the Ukraine war while he was still president elect. How? Trump believes he’s so tough, he would scare Putin into crying ‘Uncle’ out the fear of Trump’s retribution upon reentering the White House.
Regarding Israel, Trump was bloodthirsty. He scolded Biden for trying to stop Israel from completing the destruction and takeover of Gaza even tho Biden is doing the opposite. Trump’s position all along on this 9 month long bloodbath destroying life for 2,300,000 Palestinians in Gaza, is to let Israel “finish the job.”
Biden was even worse on Ukraine and Gaza because, as president, he’s responsible for supporting both grisly wars with hundreds of billions in weapons instead of sound diplomacy to end them. His utter lack of conscience and compassion for the beleaguered people of Ukraine and Gaza prevent him from doing that.
Biden remains locked in1970’s Cold War brinkmanship. He charged Russia is trying to recreate the old Soviet Union when Russia’s ceasefire proposal, which Biden dismissed out of hand, leaves Ukraine west of Donbas and all of Europe in peace and the Donbas Ukrainians free from Kyiv’s neo-fascist marauders.
On Israel, Biden offered up huge whoppers befitting dinner at Burger King. He claimed only Hamas is preventing peace when it’s Netanyahu kicking the sand of war in Biden’s face at every Biden overture for peace. Biden poses as sympathetic to Palestinians while bragging how he’s given Israel everything they need to destroy any semblance of sustainable life in Gaza.
Biden claimed Hamas must be destroyed before there can be any discussion of a Palestinian nation. But Biden, like Netanyahu, remains in denial of Israeli military leaders who tell Netanyahu, you cannot destroy Hamas because it’s an idea…the idea to end Israeli Apartheid and establish a sovereign and genocide free Palestinian state.
Most of the post debate chatter concerned Biden’s feeble attempt to appear vigorous enough to govern America and Trump’s blizzard of lies. While Biden did nothing to appear ready for another 4 years, Trump did offer one astounding truth about Biden’s governance that should terrify us all. He charged that Biden’s reckless foreign policy is risking WWIII. That ominous possibility has stalked the world since Biden provoked the war in Ukraine and has kept it ravaging Ukraine for 29 months with mushroom clouds more likely every day on the horizon.
Chances for a serious debate on America’s despicable wars in Ukraine and Gaza at the next debate? Zero.
Wildfires ravaging Arctic Circle – EU monitor
Wildfires are once again ravaging the Arctic Circle, the EU’s climate
change monitor – Copernicus – has reported. It is the third time in the
past five years that high intensity fires have swept across the region.
In a statement released on Thursday, Copernicus reported higher air
temperatures and drier conditions in Sakha, Russia, which are rendering the
ideal conditions for wildfires once there is a spark. Quoted by Russia
state news agency Tass, the region’s deputy minister of ecology, management
and forestry said more than 160 wildfires affected nearly 460,000 hectares
of land up until 24 June.
Scientists are concerned that smoke from the
flames will hinder the ability of the Arctic ice to reflect solar radiation
– which would mean both the land and sea absorb more heat. Professor Gail
Whiteman from the University of Exeter told the BBC that the Arctic region
was “ground zero for climate change”.
BBC 27th June 2024
How far can American money push the Kiev regime’s suicidal war with Russia?
SOTT, Drago Bosnic, InfoBrics, Thu, 27 Jun 2024
The economic might of the United States was one of the major reasons why the Allies won WW2. While much of the world was in ruins thanks to the combined invasion of the Axis powers, America was virtually unscathed. Its strategically isolated position made it possible to switch to an unprecedented war economy without the fear of it ever being disrupted by anything. Unfortunately, one of the tools of victory over the world’s most repugnant ideology soon turned into a way of pushing the outgrowth of that ideology all across the globe.
The birth of the US MIC (Military Industrial Complex), particularly when combined with “Operation Paperclip”, unified the production capacity of America and technological innovations of Germany, creating a monster that many have been warning about ever since, including US General (and later president) Dwight D. Eisenhower.
He warned in his 1961 farewell address:
“Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex [MIC].”
However, it all fell on deaf ears, as many warmongers and war criminals were already deeply ingrained in virtually every federal institution. American militarism became the norm and this hasn’t changed to this very day. Dozens of major conflicts were launched under endless false pretexts, with millions of dead and tens of millions displaced in the last 20 years alone. Perhaps the only segment of America’s production economy that hasn’t been outsourced entirely is precisely the MIC. A lot of its less crucial parts have been, but the core elements remain in the US. However, the country’s financial structure went through tectonic changes since Eisenhower’s era. Namely, after President Nixon ended the gold standard, the might of the MIC was unleashed and American militarism spread to other NATO members, cementing a conglomerate of nations with one interest alone – perpetual war.
…………………………………………………………………………. the Kiev regime has so far gotten upwards of three times more money than what Moscow has (nominally) spent on its entire military in 2021. This means that Russia is getting a lot more bang for its buck. However, things are about to get a lot worse for the Neo-Nazi junta, as the Kremlin has made some major changes in its Ministry of Defense. Worse yet, Russia is now increasing its military spending to a nominal figure of nearly $200 billion, although the real budget (in GDP PPP terms) is now equivalent to over half a trillion dollars. NATO fully realizes that the Kiev regime’s already slim chances of winning are now in the realm of impossible, which is why it decided to deploy up to half a million soldiers and get them ready for a direct confrontation with Moscow, while also trying to use sabotage and terrorism to shift its attention away from Ukraine.
However, none of this has reinvigorated America’s MIC in the same way wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have. On the contrary, it revealed its numerous deficiencies, particularly in artillery munitions production, an area in which Russia keeps strengthening its already dominant position and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. What’s more, America is now wasting decades-old stockpiles (as well as those of its allies, vassals and satellite states) just to keep the Neo-Nazi junta another day in the fight. It’s even giving top dollar for surplus Soviet-era weapons and equipment around the world, as these have proven to be far more robust and cost-effective in comparison to overhyped NATO gear. This is without even taking into account a number of Russia’s asymmetric advantages, ones that NATO can match only with terrorist attacks on beachgoers. https://www.sott.net/article/492721-How-far-can-American-money-push-the-Kiev-regimes-suicidal-war-with-Russia
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (92)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 