nuclear-news

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

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

July 4, 2024 Posted by | Russia, safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

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

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Talent-Shortage-Threatens-Europes-Nuclear-Renaissance.html

July 4, 2024 Posted by | employment, EUROPE | Leave a comment

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.

July 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

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.

July 4, 2024 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

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.”

July 3, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

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.

July 3, 2024 Posted by | Legal, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

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.

July 2, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c25l17v7qn0o

July 2, 2024 Posted by | ARCTIC, climate change | Leave a comment

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

July 2, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

WAR OR PEACE: Towards a Ukrainian Peace or a Direct NATO-Russian War

Russian and Eurasian Politicsby GORDONHAHN. June 28, 2024

Introduction

The following is an overview of the recent events and present state of the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War. We observe movement towards the end of the conflict in its present configuration and in two new directions simultaneously—a race to the final resolution of the NATO-Russia question. One direction consists of movement towards peace negotiations. The other is toward escalation into a open, direct NATO-Russia war likely to expand beyond the borders of Ukraine and far western regions of Russia. The race to resolution is on and it remains anyone’s guess whether peace or greater war will win the day.

Russia Proposes Diplomacy…Again

On June 14 Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed a roadmap for ending the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War during a speech at Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs………………………………………………………………..

. In particular, he has now offered “simple” conditions for the “beginning of discussions.” They include: the full withdrawal of all Ukrainian troops from Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhia oblasts as they existed as of 1991—that is, Russia would receive all the oblasts’ territories not just those now controlled by Russian troops. Immediately upon agreeing to this condition and a second requiring Kiev’s rejection of any NATO membership (Ukraine’s “neutral, non-bloc, non-nuclear status”), from the Russian side “immediately, literally the same minute there will follow an order to cease fire and begin negotiations” and Moscow “will guarantee the unhindered and safe withdrawal” of Ukrainian units. ……………………………….

To be sure, Putin’s offer was not made under the illusion that it would be taken up within the next few months and was certainly another effort to lay blame for the conflict at Washington’s, Brussels and, less so perhaps, Kiev’s doors. Nevertheless, Putin’s public offering before Russia’s Foreign Ministry personnel is a most authoritative and official statement of a specific proposal from Russia; one that included paths to both a ceasefire and permanent peace, if Washington and/or Kiev choose to take them as Ukraine continues to crumble at the front, in the political sphere, and economically throughout this year. 

………………………………………………………Continued refusal to talk with Moscow and any further Russian gains give Putin flexibility in enticing or threatening Washington, Brussels, and/or Kiev to the negotiating table. Refuse talks and lose non-Novorossiyan lands; accept talks and Kiev gets them back.        

Also, both subjectively (with Putin’s intent) and objectively (without Putyin’s intent) the proposal undermined Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy’s ‘disnamed’ ‘peace summit’ in Switzerland which was nothing other than an exercise in rallying support among supporters for the beleaguered Maidan regime. ………………………..

……………………………………………………my sense that the Ukrainian war will end one way or the other this year unless NATO intervenes directly with troops on the ground.

Moscow’s Military Plans: Reject Talks and War You Shall Have

Moscow’s military plans for the remainder of the year can be summed up as continuity in Ukraine and preparations for war beyond Ukraine against the West. Thus, in Ukraine Russia will continue its more offensive strategy of ‘attrit and advance’ upgraded from, an intensification of what Alexander Mercouris calls ‘aggressive attrition’ (https://gordonhahn.com/2024/02/02/russian-strategic-transformation-in-ukraine-from-aggressive-attrition-to-attrit-and-advance/). . Under attrit and advance, Russian forces still emphasize destruction of Ukraine’s armed forces over the taking and holding of new territory. The attrition of massive, combined air, artillery, missile, and drone war supersedes the advances on the ground by armor and infantry in this strategy. Thus, territorial advance is slow, but personnel losses are fewer. 

………………………………………………………………….Despite the calls of some Russian hawks, Putin will never acquiesce to bomb Ukraine, no less Kiev ‘into a parking lot’ or ‘the stone age.’ For Russians, Ukrainians are a fraternal eastern Slavic people, with long-standing ties to Russia. Most Russian families have relatives or friends from or in Ukraine. Kiev is ‘the mother of all Russian cities’, and despite Russia’s possession of precise smart weapons, the risk of destroying Orthodox holy sites and other historical monuments in Kiev is too high. Russia’s overwhelming strength in weapons and manpower, despite Western inputs into Ukraine’s armed forces, could allow Russian attrit and advance to persist for many years—more than will be necessary to force negotiations or seize much of Ukraine.

Boiling the Russian Frog – Escalation by Any Other Name

There has been much talk about the US repeartedly stepping over Russian red lines. The most recent is Washington’s and Brussels’ (NATO’s) grant of permission to Kiev to target the territory of Russia proper (1991 territory) with Western-made weapons. The West itself has drawn many red lines that it said could spark direct war with Russia and, therefore, should not be crossed: offensive weapons, artillery, tanks, aircraft, various types of missiles, cluster munitions, etc., etc. Most recently, Washington crossed two red lines in rapid succession by approving Kiev use of U.S missiles, such as ATACMs to target Russian territory across the border in Kharkov and, presumably Sumy……………………………………………………………………

It then expanded approval of the use of such missiles against any Russian territories from which attacks in Ukraine are being supported  (www.politico.com/news/2024/06/20/us-says-ukraine-can-hit-inside-russia-anywhere-00164261). Days later Ukraine fired 5 ATACMs (4 were intercepted) at Sevastopol which hit beach-goers far from any military target, wounding 46 and killing 3, including 2 children. The potential escalation of the overall war resulting from this Ukrainian target was compounded ……………………………………………………………………….

 Western NATO leaders seem intent on expanding the war beyond Ukraine’s borders and that will require Western public support and thus a vaccum of public discussion of NATO actions and national interests. Even if the constant escalation is ‘simply’ a game of chicken, upping the ante to see if Putin blinks or if the war can be dragged out past the November U.S. elections, there are many in U.S. intelligence and other departments, who are itching for a war against Russia who may escalate or enable Kiev to do so, intentionally or not, such that one is provoked. Unintentionality comes in, as Kiev has been anxious to force NATO or at least NATO member-states into direct involvement in the war. Ukraine has achieved some success in this, but so far such Western involvement has been limited, intially, to secret injections of Western troops and mercenaries, and then to open advisory roles. The summer and fall of 2024 will be a dangerous window in which a spark can detonate the larger war that such mad men and women are playing with.

To the extent that the West remains intent on continuing the escalation of the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War, Moscow will engage in asymmetrical escalation targeting Western forces outside of Europe and prepare for possible full-scale war with NATO or NATO members in and beyond Ukraine……………………………………………………………….

Towards a Eurasian Security Pact: Getting Ready for Direct War with NATO

With war with NATO now firmly in the cards, a distinct possibility, the Kremlin is intensely set on military and military-political preparations. The rejection of Putin’s next peace proposal was likely the last straw that will set in motion the next phase in Russia’s diplomatic offensive in tendem with China aimed at rallying the Rest against the West. …………….

For years, particularly after the Maidan coup, Putin has been conducting Russian diplomacy with the goal of creating a Great Eurasian and global alternative to the West’s ‘rules-based world order’, seeking to base a new, alternative international system of political, economic, financial, and monetary institutions on different rules written by all the great powers – the ‘Rest’ – rather than just the West…………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………. This Greater Eurasia security pact is thus also a mechanism for splitting NATO, particularly Europe from the U.S. This is to be achieved by networking and lobbying all the international organizations in Eurasia that Russia has been building for decades now: ………………………………….

……………………………………………… the train of the Rest’s rejection of the Western worldview has left the station, and, with the danger of escalation in Ukraine, Israel, and elsewhere afoot, it seems more likely that the new Eurasian-South bloc will be an alternative to, possibly a foe of the West’s ‘rules-based world order’ rather than a partner (http://kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/74285). 

Conclusion

         Again, the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War – the current war with militay combat confined largely to Ukrainian and far western Russian territory — will end this year or very early next year. However, a new broader war can take its place, if the peace fails or is never agreed upon. ………………………………………………………

……………..   The hope is that cooler heads will prevail, but the U.S. is in the midst of a deep and potentially explosive political crisis in which bureaucratic politics can become highly cryptic, conspiratorial, chaotic, and irrational, provoking new more dangerous conflict. Similarly, in Kiev a meltdown of the Maidan regime could be imminent and will likely come as a shot in the dark, unexpected by all……………………………………………………..

That Zelenskiy is now broaching peace talks with Putin is a reflection of the opportunity and dangers that are in the offing.   https://gordonhahn.com/2024/06/28/war-or-peace-towards-a-ukrainian-peace-or-a-direct-nato-russian-war/

July 1, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons spending report reveals corporate intervention in UK nuclear policy – CND

“It is time for political parties to determine policy based on the interests of the people, not the arms companies.” Kate Hudson, CND General Secretary

“It is time for political parties to determine policy based on the interests of the people, not the arms companies.” Kate Hudson, CND General Secretary

By the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) ,  https://labouroutlook.org/2024/06/29/nuclear-weapons-spending-report-reveals-corporate-intervention-in-uk-nuclear-policy-cnd/

CND welcomes the release of the “Surge: 2023 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending” report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). The report provides a stark and troubling overview of global nuclear weapons expenditure: it has surged by 34% in the past five years, from $68.2 billion to $91.4 billion annually, with a cumulative total of $387 billion during this period.

The report also highlights a deeply worrying and absolutely inappropriate corporate involvement in UK government policy making. The report found that companies involved in Britain’s nuclear weapons programmes have held meetings with senior government officials in the past year. These manufacturers, along with nuclear-armed states, have also financed – to the tune of millions of pounds – think tanks that shape government policy and public opinion on nuclear weapons.

In terms of spending on nuclear weapons, UK figures are particularly shocking. Over the past five years, Britain’s spending has increased by over 43%. In 2023 alone, Britain spent a staggering £6.5 billion on nuclear weapons, up 17.1% on the previous year. This positions Britain as the fourth-highest spender on nuclear weapons globally, just behind Russia, and marks the second-largest increase in spending after the United States – which spent more than all the other nuclear-armed states combined.

This report comes at a critical time, during Britain’s general election campaign. Both Labour and the Conservatives have pledged to modernise the country’s nuclear arsenal, seemingly at any cost.

CND General Secretary Kate Hudson said:

“The billions of pounds being funnelled into these weapons of mass destruction are a gross misallocation of resources that could be used to address pressing issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and poverty alleviation. It is deeply concerning that our political leaders are prioritizing the expansion of our nuclear arsenal over the well-being of our citizens and the health of our planet.

This report also makes absolutely clear the influence of arms companies in the shaping of defence and foreign policy, their funding of think tanks, and their meetings with government officials. This runs against all democracy and accountability, and must be exposed, investigated and ended.

As we approach the general election on 4 July, we urge voters to elect MPs who prioritise peace, disarmament, and justice. It is time for political parties to determine policy based on the interests of the people, not the arms companies. We want a decent peaceful future that does not include reckless expenditure on nuclear weapons but creates a safer, fairer world for all.”

July 1, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

A vigil behind bars: pair who protested US nuclear bombs in Germany serving time

The judges and prosecutors, as well as the guards in prison, treat us respectfully and politely while at the same time sticking to laws and rules that are unjust and cause suffering. The biggest crime in their eyes is to upset the “order”, even though the order is set up to be criminal. 

By Susan Crane and Susan van der Hijden , 29 June 24  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/06/30/a-vigil-behind-bars/

Here in Rohrbach prison we are awakened by the sounds of doves and other birds, giving the illusion that all is well in the world, until other sounds, keys rattling, doors being shut, and guards doing the morning body check, bring us back to reality.

We are sitting in a prison cell, 123 km from Büchel Air Force Base, where more than 20 U.S. nuclear bombs are deployed. 

At the moment, the runway at Büchel is being rebuilt to accommodate the new F-35 fighter jets that will carry the new B61-12 nuclear bombs that were designed and built in the U.S. 

The planning, preparation, possession, deployment, threat or use of these B61-bombs is illegal and criminal. The U.S., Germany and NATO know that each B61 nuclear bomb would inflict unnecessary suffering and casualties on combatants and civilians and induce cancers, keloid growth and leukemia in large numbers, inflict congenital deformities in unborn children and poison food supplies.

“We have no right to obey,” says Hannah Arendt. 

Although our actions might seem futile, we understand that it is our right, duty and responsibility to stand against the planning and preparation for the use of these weapons. They are illegal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which both Germany and the U.S. have signed and ratified, and under the the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Charter.

During the international peace camps in Büchel (organized by the G.A.A.A. which consists of, among others, IPPNW, ICAN and DFG-VK; the German War Resisters League), we, together with other war resisters, and with the help of many supporters, went onto Büchel Air Force Base to communicate with the military personnel about the illegality and immorality of the nuclear bombs. We also wanted to withdraw our consent and complicity to their use.

The judges who sentenced us for these actions made a decision to follow some laws and ignore others. It is common sense, and we all know, that even the law against trespass can be broken when life is endangered.

The judges and prosecutors, as well as the guards in prison, treat us respectfully and politely while at the same time sticking to laws and rules that are unjust and cause suffering. The biggest crime in their eyes is to upset the “order”, even though the order is set up to be criminal. 

We wake up every day with determined joy to continue our “vigil behind bars”. A joy constrained by knowing that the other women here have pain, from being separated from their family and children or from constant physical or psychological difficulties or from being locked in a cell all day with nothing to do. 

We are only able to “vigil behind bars” through the immense support of people making sure our Catholic Worker houses can continue, people sending us cards and stamps, organizing visits and money for phone calls, remembering us in their prayers, doing press work and those that continue fighting the death dealing war-makers in the world. 

Susan Crane is serving a 229 day sentence, and Susan van der Hijden a 115 day sentence, for their nonviolent nuclear disarmament actions at Büchel air base. You can write cards and letters to them, individually addressed to each at JVA Rohrbach, Peter-Caesar-Allee 1, 55597 Wöllstein, Germany. Updates can be found here. 

July 1, 2024 Posted by | Germany, Legal, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Do the research and end the nuclear hype in New Brunswick

by Susan O’Donnell, June 29, 2024,  https://nbmediacoop.org/2024/06/29/do-the-research-and-end-the-nuclear-hype-in-new-brunswick/

New Brunswick’s ARC nuclear project is in trouble. This situation highlights the lack of critical knowledge about nuclear reactor designs within NB Power and the New Brunswick government.

The ARC project goal is to design and build a nuclear reactor cooled with liquid sodium metal at the Point Lepreau site on the Bay of Fundy. NB Power also plans a second reactor at the site, the Moltex reactor design cooled with molten salt.

The proposed nuclear reactor designs lack commercial viability

If NB Power and the provincial government reviewed available research, they would learn that both sodium-cooled and molten salt reactors have never operated successfully on a commercial electricity grid.

An expert report from the U.S. National Academies  of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine stated that inherent problems with sodium-cooled and molten salt reactors means new builds will have difficulty reaching commercial viability by the year 2050, far later than the federal 2035 deadline for utilities to transition to a net-zero electricity grid.

For sodium-cooled reactors like the ARC design, tens of billions of dollars have been spent over decades trying to make them work in a commercial setting, by companies in other countries with considerable experience building nuclear reactors. The failures are well-documented.

Liquid sodium metal is reactive and burns when exposed to air or water. The first commercial sodium-cooled reactor in the U.S. had a partial meltdown and was quickly scrapped.

In other countries, sodium fires and unpredictable performances led to sodium-cooled reactors being abandoned in France (the Superphénix), Japan (the Monju breeder), Germany (the Kalkar plant), and Scotland (the Dounreay reactor).

All these shut-down sodium-cooled reactors cost far more to decommission than they did to build, partly due to the expense of removing the sodium from the reactors’ radioactive waste material so it could be safely disposed without causing underground explosions due to sodium-water reactions, as happened for Scotland’s Dounreay reactor.

The proposed reactor designs lack financing

The ARC sodium-cooled design is in its preliminary stage. Bill Labbe, the ARC CEO who suddenly left the company recently, said in 2023 that $500 million is needed to develop the ARC reactor design, and a further $600 million in power purchase agreements to move the project forward. The money raised to date for the ARC project is only a tiny fraction of that.

Since 2018 the provincial government has handed $25 million to ARC and $10 million to Moltex, as ‘seed’ funding to attract private investment. The federal government gave Moltex $50.5 million in 2021 and ARC $7 million in 2023.

However, six years of trying to entice private investors to the ARC and Moltex projects has not yielded results. Globally, private investment in the energy sector is going into renewable – not nuclear – energy.

Misplaced government hype

Despite the ARC company’s financial difficulties, according to news reports both NB Power and the New Brunswick government continue to support the ARC project.

Since the two start-up companies arrived in Canada and landed in Saint John in 2018, the government’s hype around the ARC and Moltex projects at times has been intense, surprisingly so, given that neither company has ever built a nuclear reactor.

In the past, Energy Minister Mike Holland has been the biggest booster of the ARC and Moltex “advanced” reactor designs.

However, in a curious coincidence, Holland quit the cabinet and gave up his MLA seat just days before the troubles at the ARC company hit the news, after previously announcing he would not stand in the upcoming election.

New Brunswick’s money-losing Point Lepreau nuclear plant

NB Power wants to build the ARC reactor near its existing Point Lepreau nuclear reactor, a consistent money loser for the utility.

According to the NB Auditor General, about three-quarters of NB Power’s $5 billion debt is from cost over-runs on the original CANDU reactor build 40 years ago and the re-build more than a dozen years ago.

At the recent Energy and Utility Board hearings, it was clear that the ongoing poor performance of the Lepreau plant is contributing to the utility’s financial difficulties and its request for an unprecedented rate hike.

Nuclear: the most expensive option for generating electricity

New Brunswick’s abysmal prior experience with nuclear reactors raises an obvious question: why is the province intent on trying to develop experimental nuclear reactors as part of its energy transition plans?

Nuclear power is a more expensive way to generate electricity than renewable energy with storage. Nuclear plants take much longer to build than solar or wind farms. These facts are well-known.

Even the right-wing magazine The Economist recognizes the global trend toward renewables and away from nuclear energy, stating in its most recent issue that: “the next ten-fold increase (in solar energy) will be equivalent to multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight, in less than the time it typically takes to build one of them.”

New Brunswick: clinging to an outdated vision of electricity production

The challenge for New Brunswick is that our public utility NB Power is stuck, along with Ontario Power Generation, in the Jurassic era, feeding their nuclear dinosaurs while the rest of the utility world is getting on with their renewables and storage rollouts.

Across the globe, countries are focused on technological revolutions in energy efficiency and productivity, building smart grids with demand management and response and distributed renewable energy and storage resources. These offer lower-cost, lower-risk, faster and more flexible pathways for decarbonized electricity grids without large centralized nuclear systems.

Building more nuclear reactors and increasing power rates is not compatible with what many commentators in the province want in our shared economic, social and cultural future. It’s time for New Brunswick to end the nuclear hype.

Susan O’Donnell is the principal investigator with teammates of the CEDAR project, St. Thomas University in Fredericton.

July 1, 2024 Posted by | Canada, spinbuster | Leave a comment

UK’s Nuclear weapons pose a risk to proposed new homes


By Nick Clark, Local Democracy Reporting Service, 28 June 24,  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clddy5kyv64o

Nuclear weapons could pose a risk to plans for almost 500 homes just outside a village, a council has been warned.

The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) – the only maker of nuclear warheads in Britain – has opposed plans for the development near Spencers Wood in Berkshire.

It told Wokingham Borough Council the residents would live in an area exposed to a “radiation emergency” if something went wrong at its site in nearby Burghfield.

Proposals for the site also include a primary school and green space.

‘Safety concerns’

Development consultants Pegasus Group submitted the plans for up to 475 homes in May.

While not a formal planning application, the submission hopes to determine if a development would affect the environment, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).

But in a letter to the council, AWE said the plans raised “significant” safety concerns.

It said the proposed site, between Basingstoke Lane and Sussex Lane, fell within its Detailed Emergency Planning Zone (DEPZ).

This is an area where neighbouring West Berkshire Council must have a detailed plan in place for its response to a nuclear emergency at Burghfield.

AWE said: “Whilst chances of a radiation emergency at AWE B are very low, the potential impact on the local population would be high and an appropriate and proportionate step is, to where possible, avoid new development being located within the DEPZ.”

It added the increased population in the area would also put strain on emergency services’ ability to help existing residents in the event of an emergency.

Wokingham Borough Council’s own emergency planning manager also said he would likely oppose the proposals if developers Richborough applied for planning permission.

He said the new development would have a “detrimental impact” on its emergency plan to help people living within the DEPZ.

July 1, 2024 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

What does Chevron mean for nuclear? The USA courts can now supercede the safety role of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

should we trust the courts to be better arbiters of how nuclear power plants should be regulated than the actual agency set up to regulate them?

In the worst-case scenario, rogue judges are now empowered to issue out-of-pocket decisions on highly technical matters they don’t actually understand.

The NRC was the undisputed final word in what goes for nuclear energy in the United States. Did the overturning of the longstanding Chevron decision now put the courts above the regulatory agency?

Elemental, ANGELICA OUNG, JUN 30, 2024

The US Supreme Court just overturned the longstanding “Chevron deference” This is a move so dramatic that Dahlia Lithwick, senior legal editor at Slate, described it as a “requiem” for the Administrative state.

According to Lithwick in the Slate Podcast on the issue, the Chevron doctrine said that when a statute is unclear, federal courts should defer to a reasonable interpretation by administrative agencies. No more. Courts can now decide from the get-go what a statute means, regardless of what the agency thinks.

Once upon a time, ironically, it was the conservative Justice Scalia who was the Chevron doctrine’s biggest fan. But as it becomes increasingly clear that the conservative justices are going to enjoy a generational hold on the Supreme Court while the party holding the Executive Branch flips and flops, it became an advantageous political project for the court to take out Chevron and transfer power from the “ABC agencies,” which of course includes the National Regulatory Commission (NRC) over to the courts.

“This fundamentally changes the way government governs,” said Lithwick.

So what now? If the court is now the final arbiter for whether, say, a bump stock makes a gun a machine gun, is it also going to become the final arbiter on whether a giant trampoline works as well as a reinforced containment dome for that purpose of protecting a nuclear reactor from the impact of a large commercial aircraft?

In fact, since the Aircraft Impact Assessment (AIA) is a part of the NRC’s regulations, not explicitly mandated by law, the court can even opt to throw the regulation out entirely.

The undercutting of the NRC goes both ways: just as nuclear companies can now challenge what they see as unreasonably onerous NRC regulations in court, they are now also vulnerable to individuals or groups claiming harm, even if the companies followed all the regulatory guidelines, increasing their legal risk.

As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion in the landmark 6-3 ruling, “Agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan warned that Congress does not have the ability to write perfectly complete regulatory statutes and it would be preferable for the gaps formed by inevitable ambiguities to be filled by the responsible agency, not a court. The decision “is likely to produce large-scale disruption.”………………………………………………………………………………………………

…….should we trust the courts to be better arbiters of how nuclear power plants should be regulated than the actual agency set up to regulate them?

In the worst-case scenario, rogue judges are now empowered to issue out-of-pocket decisions on highly technical matters they don’t actually understand.  https://elementalenergy.substack.com/p/what-does-chevron-mean-for-nuclear

July 1, 2024 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »