“Final Investment Decision (FID) ” in Sizewell C nuclear station might never happen
There are media reports that a Final Investment Decision (FID) “risks
dragging into 2025″ over negotiations with investors. See Bloomberg’s
report, also New Civil Engineer and Energy Live News. These articles do not
consider whether a FID might not in fact ever happen, but we are keeping up
the pressure. Interestingly, while Bloomberg mentions four of the known
possible investors (see list below on original), USS and Equitix are absent. It’s
unclear what, if anything, this means but we are attempting to find out. If
you have not yet written to these companies to urge them not to invest, now
would be an excellent time to do so.
Stop Sizewell C 22nd Aug 2024
Zelensky’s Misadventures in Kursk
This operation is likely to be working upside-down to what we are reading in corporate media.
Not long prior to the incursion, the Biden regime had given Kiev dispensation to use U.S.–made weapons against Russian targets so long as these were deployed in self-defense and against military targets.
the question remains. What is the point as the Kursk operation continues?
By Patrick Lawrence / Original to ScheerPost, 23 Aug 24
It has been three weeks since ground units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine crossed into the Kursk province in southwestern Russia, surprising — or maybe not surprising — the U.S. and its clients in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Two days later, the AFU began artillery and drone attacks in Belgorod, a province just south of Kursk. It has been a little more than a week since explosions at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, which lies in what is now Russian territory along the Dnipro River, ignited a fire in one of the plant’s two cooling towers. All six reactors are now in cold shutdown.
In the still-to-be-confirmed file, BelTA, the Belarusian news agency, reported last weekend that Ukraine has amassed significant forces along the Belarus–Ukraine border. Aleksandr Lukashenko, the Belarusian president, put the troop count at an improbable 120,000. Further out in speculative territory, RT International reported at the weekend that the AFU is “preparing a nuclear false flag—an explosion of a dirty atomic bomb,” targeting nuclear-waste storage sites at the Zaporozhye plant. RT cited “intelligence received by Russia” and a military correspondent and documentarian named Marat Khairullin.
Hmmm.
When I began my adventures in the great craft at the New York Daily News long years ago, two of the better shards of wisdom I picked up were, “Go with what you’ve got” and “When in doubt, leave it out.” Let us proceed accordingly as we consider Ukraine’s latest doings in the proxy war it wages. I will leave aside the BelTA and RT International reports pending further developments, but with this caveat: Amassing units along the Belarus border would be entirely in keeping with the AFU’s recent forays into Russian territory. As for the imminence of a dangerous false flag op at the Zaporozhye plant, I would not put it past a regime that has acted recklessly and irrationally on numerous occasions in the past.
Why, we are left to ask of what we know to be so, did the AFU send troops, tanks, artillery, drone units, and assorted matériel into Kursk on Tuesday, Aug. 6? And then the ancillary operation in Belgorod? Everyone wondered this at first—supposedly everyone, anyway. This is our question, and I will shortly get to the “supposedly.”
On the eve of the incursion, Kiev was losing ground steadily to a new Russian advance in eastern Ukraine. Critically short of troops, the Ukrainian forces are, indeed, about to lose a tactically significant town, Pokrovsk, on their side of the Russian border. The thought that the AFU would sustain and expand its Kursk operation to bring the war to Russian territory in any effective way is prima facie preposterous. What was the point? Where is the strategic gain?
In his speech Monday evening at the Democratic Party convention in Chicago, Joe Biden defended his proxy war in Ukraine as a just war waged in the name of democracy and liberty. Oh? setting aside the emptiness of this characterization, the question remains. What is the point as the Kursk operation continues? The AFU now holds one Russian town and six villages, according to the latest reports, which also indicate they have set about destroying bridges critical to Russian supply lines. But where to from here? I do not see a sensible answer.
There is no question the Russians were caught off guard when the AFU crossed into the border village of Sudzha and proceeded with evidently little initial resistance further into Russian territory. Hundreds of thousands of Russians have been evacuated; the governor of Belgorod quickly declared a state of emergency after the drone and artillery strikes of Aug. 14.
But we cannot count this as any kind of astute strategic move. I do not pretend to have an inside read as to Russia’s apparent intelligence failure or what looks like its flat-footed response. But I do not think we can correctly mark down events to date to the AFU’s superior strength or the Russians’ weakness or incompetence. Western correspondents are having a fine old time reporting that klutzy, clumsy Moscow is once again stumbling, but I buy none of it. In my view this is probably another case of Russian restraint: The AFU is using U.S. — and NATO — supplied weapons, and the Kremlin has all along been acutely sensitive to the risk of escalation against Kiev’s Western sponsors.
My conclusion: No one’s script has flipped. This operation is likely to be working upside-down to what we are reading in corporate media. The best explanation they have come up with so far is that Kiev’s plan was to draw Russian forces away from the front on the Ukrainian side of the border. That has plainly not happened, however much The Times indulges in denial on this point. “And now Moscow has begun withdrawing some troops from Ukraine in an effort to repel Kyiv’s offensive into western Russia, Constant Méthuet reported Aug. 14 — before adding “according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials.” Crapulous journalism. Simply crapulous. There is no evidence of this whatsoever—only of further Russian gains as noted above.
Inversely, the Kursk adventure required a lot of Ukrainian units to get going and more now to sustain. It is Kiev that is wasting resources on what is bound to end in retreat. The Russian military has not marshaled anything approaching its full force. This is likely to end when Moscow decides it should, and in the meantime the Russians appear to wage the same wearing war of attrition that has reduced the AFU to something close to a desperate force on the home front.
The initial press reports of the Kursk adventure had it that top officials in Washington were caught entirely by surprise and were as perplexed as the rest of us as to the “Why?” of the thing. I do not accept this at face value, either. The Times ran a lengthy report on the Ukrainians’ preparations, featuring residents in the towns bordering Kursk remarking for weeks about the buildup of AFU units and matériel before the operation began. Russian intelligence took note, The Times also reported. And the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies, and the administration were all taken by surprise? To quote an East European emigre I knew in the old days, “Gimme break.”
Not long prior to the incursion, the Biden regime had given Kiev dispensation to use U.S.–made weapons against Russian targets so long as these were deployed in self-defense and against military targets. And the only reason the U.S. is at all interested in Ukraine, we must remind ourselves—forget about freedom and democracy, for heaven’s sake—is for its use in prosecuting the West’s long, varied campaign to subvert “Putin’s Russia.” This remains the ultimate objective. In the matter of Washington’s hand in directing the Zelensky regime from one adventure to another, Biden’s national security people wear more fig leaves than you find on a tree in Tuscany. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Maybe Zelensky wants some Russian real estate as a bargaining advantage in negotiations with Russia he has come to accept as inevitable. It is possible but does not fit with his adamant insistence that the full restoration of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, is non negotiable — a precondition to any diplomacy. And as in Netanyahu’s case, a settlement would put his political future greatly in doubt.
In any case, Zelensky chose badly when the AFU crossed into Russian territory at Kursk. The Red Army’s defeat of the Wehrmacht at Kursk, in 1943, was the largest battle in the history of warfare and left roughly 1.7 million Russians dead, wounded, or missing. Along with Stalingrad, it marked a decisive moment in the Allied victory over the Reich. Russians do not forget this kind of thing, especially when German weapons are part of the AFU’s arsenal. The thought of Ukrainian troops and tanks holding Kursk is another of the miscalculations that litter the story of this war since it began with the U.S.–inspired coup 10 years ago. https://scheerpost.com/2024/08/22/patrick-lawrence-zelenskys-misadventures-in-kursk/
A new French fairy tale: “Cheap” nuclear electricity in France is not what it appears.
The French public are paying for their nuclear addiction — and will pay even more when the plants need decommissioning.
By Axel Mayer, 11 Sept 23, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/09/11/a-new-french-fairy-tale/—
“Bread and games”(Panem et circenses) were the enforcement strategies in the Roman Empire to maintain power. “Cheap petrol, cheap electricity and football” are popular campaign strategies under a democracy, says Axel Mayer, Vice-President of the Trinational Nuclear Protection Association (TRAS).
In France, the nuclear industry is in decline and the nuclear company EDF is heavily in debt. At the same time, President Macron is once again promising cheap nuclear power and wants to have new small nuclear power plants built. A small part of the French nuclear industry’s financial problems is to be solved with EU money.
In this context, the fairy tale of cheap French nuclear power is happily spread in France and also in Germany and the use of nuclear energy is praised as the miracle weapon in the losing war against nature and the environment. However, the price of electricity in France is only apparently cheap.
According to a report of the supreme audit court in France, the research and development, as well as the construction of the French nuclear power plants, cost a total of 188 billion euros. Since in France the “civilian” and the military use of nuclear power cannot be separated, the sum is probably much higher. Retrofitting France’s outdated reactors will cost over 55 billion euros. Liberation magazine reports retrofitting costs of nearly 100 billion euros by 2030.
People of France are paying for expensive nuclear power with their taxes
According to a report by the French Ministry of Economy, the semi-state-owned EDF had debts of about 41 billion euros at the end of 2019, an amount that is expected to be nearly 57 billion euros by 2028. To avoid domestic political problems, EDF is not allowed to raise the price of electricity for political reasons. EDF liabilities are driving up France’s national debt massively. The people of France (and especially their grandchildren) are paying for the seemingly cheap, but in reality expensive nuclear power with their taxes.
This cost does not include the dismantling of the nuclear power plants or any costs of a severe accident. A serious nuclear accident would have devastating consequences in France. A government study estimates the cost at 430 billion euros.
Demolition costs of over 100 billion euros
In France, EDF operates 56 outdated reactors that are now becoming old and decrepit almost simultaneously, but the company has built up almost no reserves for decommissioning. In Germany, the government is very optimistic about a 47 billion euros cost for decommissioning and final storage. The decommissioning of the large number of French nuclear power plants could cost well over 100 billion euros as costs rise, if no savings are made on safety. There is a distinct possibility that the nuclear industry could bankrupt the French state even without a nuclear accident that could happen at any time.
A “European Pressurized Water Reactor” (EPR) has been under construction on France’s Atlantic coast in Flamanville since 2007. The flagship project was originally scheduled for completion in 2012 at a fixed price of 3.2 billion euros. Since then, the start of operation has been postponed again and again, and the Court of Auditors now puts the cost at over 19 billion euros. Whether the EPR can go online in 2024 is questionable. The model reactor will never work economically.
In countries with a functioning market, no new nuclear power plants are building
Swiss nuclear lobbyist and Axpo CEO Christoph Brand puts the kibosh on dreams of cheap nuclear power from new, small nuclear plants. “The production costs for the electricity supplied by new nuclear power plants are currently about twice as high as those of larger wind and solar plants,” Brand said. “No matter how one assesses the risks of nuclear power, it is simply not economical to rely on new nuclear plants,” he said in the pro-nuclear NZZ on Oct. 21, 2021.
In countries with a functioning market, no new nuclear power plants are being built. When in doubt, it always helps to look at EDF’s share price, which has fallen massively over the long term, to assess the market chances of the nuclear renaissance announced by President Macron.
“Bread and games” with artificially low nuclear electricity prices can work in election campaigns. Low-cost, risk-free electricity is generated today with photovoltaics and wind energy. (AM/hcn)
US crying wolf over China’s ‘nuclear threat’ while expanding nuclear arsenal
Aug 22, 2024 https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202408/1318466.shtml
On Tuesday, a New York Times report caused quite a stir: US President Joe Biden has ordered US forces to prepare for “possible coordinated nuclear confrontations with Russia, China and North Korea.” It sounds like the US president was instructing the military to prepare for doomsday, observers pointed out.
The report revealed that in March, Biden approved a highly classified nuclear strategy plan called “Nuclear Employment Guidance,” which for the first time reorients the US’ deterrent strategy to focus on the so-called threat posed by China’s rapid expansion in its nuclear arsenal. The article states that this shift comes as the Pentagon believes China’s stockpiles will rival the size and diversity of the US’ and Russia’s over the next decade.
With over 5,000 nuclear warheads, the US possesses the world’s largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal. So why does it repeatedly target China in its nuclear threat rhetoric? This can be traced back to a dilemma faced by the US Department of Defense – how to justify maintaining such a massive nuclear arsenal in the post-Cold War world. To secure more defense budgets for the domestic military-industrial complex, the US chooses to constantly manufacture or exaggerate baseless “nuclear threats.” And China has become the best excuse.
What the US truly seeks is to ensure that its power far exceeds that of any other country in the world, allowing it to threaten and coerce other nations at will, without fear of retaliation. As a hegemonic state, US’ security is built on the insecurity of other countries. To maintain its hegemonic status, the US struggles to ensure its absolute superiority in power, with nuclear weapons being a crucial tool in maintaining its global dominance. Therefore, this new nuclear strategy plan is an excuse for expanding its nuclear arsenal and sustaining its military hegemony.
China and the US have fundamentally different perceptions of the strategic role of nuclear weapons. China has repeatedly emphasized that it pursues a nuclear strategy of self-defense, and is committed to the policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. China does not engage in any nuclear arms race with any other country, and keeps its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security. The notion of establishing an offensive nuclear hegemony or pursuing the so-called goal of rivaling the nuclear arsenal size of the US does not align with China’s strategic logic. As experts pointed out, China’s development of nuclear weapons is aimed at avoiding threats from other nuclear-armed states.
No matter how the US fabricates or exaggerates the so-called China threat narrative, China’s nuclear development follows its own set pace, including a measured increase in the quantity and quality of its nuclear arsenal, which will not be swayed by the US’ interference. This is a necessary measure for China in a complex international environment to safeguard its national security and territorial integrity – a legitimate act of self-defense, Shen Yi, a professor at Fudan University, told the Global Times.
The US repeatedly harps on the “China nuclear threat” narrative, yet it is, in fact, the one that poses the biggest nuclear threat to the world. In possession of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the US follows a nuclear policy that allows first-use of nuclear weapons. In recent years, the US has invested heavily to miniaturize nuclear weapons, lowering the threshold of their use in real-combat, and used nuclear weapons as a bait to hijack its allies and partners. Its irresponsible decisions and actions have resulted in the proliferation of nuclear risks, and its attempts to maintain hegemony and intimidate the world with nuclear power have been fully exposed.
There will be no winners in a nuclear war. We urge the US to abandon Cold War mentality, recognize that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, reduce the role of nuclear weapons in national and collective security policies, and take concrete actions to promote global strategic stability, instead of doing the opposite. Instead of smearing and hyping up China, the US should reflect on itself and consider how to rebuild mutual trust with China through dialogue and sincerity.
Putin says Ukrainian forces tried to strike Kursk nuclear plant
The Russian leader does not offer any evidence for his claim but says the UN nuclear watchdog has been alerted.
Russian President Vladimir Putin says Ukrainian forces have tried to attack the Kursk Nuclear Power Station in an overnight raid.
The Russian leader did not offer evidence for the claim but said on Thursday that Moscow has informed the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), about the incident.
Ukraine has not responded to Russia’s allegations.
“The enemy tried to strike the nuclear power plant at night. The IAEA has been informed,” Putin said in a televised government meeting.
Putin made the claim as Ukrainian forces continued to fight inside Russia more than two weeks after launching an ambitious cross-border attack, which has become an embarrassing headache for Moscow.
While the strategic aims of Ukraine’s Kursk incursion remain uncertain, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday said the attack is part of an effort to bring the war to an end on terms amenable to Ukraine…………………………. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/22/putin-says-ukrainian-forces-tried-to-strike-kursk-nuclear-plant
Sizewell C seeks permit for ‘water vole displacement activities’.
Sizewell C is seeking a permit to “undertake water vole displacement activities” on two rivers near the development.
Sizewell C seeks permit for ‘water vole displacement activities’.
Sizewell C is seeking a permit to “undertake water vole displacement
activities” on two rivers near the development.
ENDS 21st Aug 2024
Report on nuclear power in Wales is so secret the UK Government won’t even disclose its name
21 Aug 2024, Martin Shipton, https://nation.cymru/news/report-on-nuclear-power-in-wales-is-so-secret-the-uk-government-wont-even-disclose-its-name/
A campaigner wanting to find out how power from a possible new nuclear power plant on Anglesey would be channelled into the national grid has been refused all information, including even the name of an official report on the matter.
Dr Jonathan Dean, a trustee of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, wrote to the UK Government’s Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), asking: “Please could I get a copy of the evaluation report where it was concluded that Wylfa on Ynys Môn should be selected as the next large nuclear site after Sizewell C.”
His request was rejected. He wrote back stating: ”I wondered if it would be possible to obtain a redacted copy of the report you mention. I have little interest in any commercial details. Ideally the whole report suitably redacted, but at least those sections dealing with the connection to the national grid; use of waste heat as per section 4.8 of national policy statement EN-1; location and area of land considered on Ynys Môn; and means of overcoming the many reasons given by the Planning Inspectorate in their recommendation to the Secretary of State in 2019/2020 to refuse the DCO [Development Consent Order] application made by Horizon Nuclear Power.
“Would it be possible to know the title and any reference number for this report to aid future requests?”
Confidential information
He was then told: “The report has been withheld in full under regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and no part of the report is available for disclosure … [The] report does not have a reference number and the title of the report is confidential information.”
Later the Department said it had quoted the wrong section of the regulations as the reason for turning down Dr Dean’s request . The correct section was regulation 12(5)(e), which states: “(The) confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.”
Dr Dean told Nation.Cymru: “There have been tentative ideas to connect the transmission grid in north Wales to that in the south since at least 2009 that I am aware of. Then the idea was a subsea connection from Wylfa to Pembroke And back in 2012 NGET [National Grid Electricity Transmission] wanted to build a 400 kV transmission line to Lower Frankton from Cefn Coch to service mid Wales wind farms.
“The Offshore Transmission Network Review in 2020 again suggested a subsea connection linking Lancashire to Wylfa to Pembroke, taking in the new Irish Sea wind farms.
“The Holistic Network Design (HND) of 2022 changed things. It brought power subsea from Scotland into Pentir (Bangor) and took power from Pentir to Swansea North substation. Although heavily caveated as just indicating a network need, and not indicating technology or route, it was described as a ‘double circuit’ which could be interpreted as meaning pylons.
“In the ‘Beyond 2030’ report this year the ESO [Electricity System Operator] says that the subsea link into Pentir will be double the capacity (4 GW?) of that in the HND, but interestingly show the extra capacity connecting to Bodelwyddan not Pentir.
“Meanwhile NGET have planned a substation at Gwyddelwern, supposedly for north Wales wind farms, and Llandyfaelog for mid Wales wind farms.
“Last week, the Beyond 2030 Celtic Sea report revealed Llandyfaelog will be one of the landing points for the Celtic Sea wind farms, and that Swansea North substation has no free capacity or space to expand
“Pentir is constrained ‘behind’ both Eryri and the new north east Wales national park (currently Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). If all the capacity from Scotland came into Bodelwyddan and headed south from there, depending on the final limits of the new national park, there may be no obvious hard constraints to pylons.
“So what might be possible? The line could go down the vale of Clwyd, maybe via the new substation in Gwyddelwern, to Cefn Coch (previously desired substation site) then Newtown (132 kV link), Builth and down the Tywi to the new substation in Llandyfaelog.
“Vyrnwy Frankton wouldn’t be needed, Tywi Usk wouldn’t be needed, and with a bit of re-jigging, Teifi Tywi wouldn’t be needed. Technically it would be a far superior transmission solution (at least the correct transmission voltage!) with up to 6 GW capacity and meet the HND objectives of linking north to south Wales. It would likely be 50m pylons carrying 400 kV double circuits.
“If there wasn’t the desire to extract wind power from mid Wales, the alternative could be a HVDC [High Voltage Direct Current] ‘bootstrap’ from Pentir to Pembroke (as per 2009). The two double circuit lines out of Pembroke can carry 12 GW so can easily accept 6 GW from north Wales (4 GW of it from Scotland) and 3 GW from the Celtic Sea, while still having space for the 2 GW Pembroke power station which will, apparently, be converted to hydrogen and/or carbon capture.
“But this is just my feverish imagination. We will have to wait and see.”
Grid connection
Responding to the UK Government’s secrecy over the transmission link from Wylfa, Dr Dean said: “I have always had an interest in Wylfa as I brought my family to Ynys Môn in the 1960s. I remember going to one of the first public meetings about Wylfa B in 1976 to hear my father talk.
“When Hitachi were developing the last iteration of Wylfa B I was involved with the campaign to have the grid connection put underground or subsea. This campaign was supported by Albert Owen, Rhun ap Iorwerth and then Virginia Crosbie. However Hitachi refused to consider a subsea connection and National Grid refused to consider a buried connection
“The Hitachi proposal was ultimately recommended for refusal by the Planning Inspectorate for multiple reasons. Knowing the north Wales grid will be so constrained by 2030, due to the growth of renewables, so much so that pylons are required from Bangor to Swansea, I was shocked at the announcement of a GW scale station. I had expected a series of SMRs [Small Modular Reactors]. There will be no spare grid capacity in the whole of north Wales for nuclear.
“As trustee of CPRW I was concerned that a new line of pylons would be put through Eryri, against UK planning policy, as there is no way around the national park other than under the sea. The UK. planning policy for nuclear has never considered grid connections, so I assumed that the DESNZ report must have addressed this. A power station without a grid connection would just be an enormous white elephant
“I still don’t understand why such technical details should be withheld from the public, given there was a very clear announcement the power station would happen. The fact the report has a ‘secret’ title, and no reference number, makes me think it doesn’t actually exist! But I cannot believe governments announce new power stations based on no analysis or consideration. Surely not?
“All I want to know is, will it be a subsea cable or more pylons all the way to Connah’s Quay? I really don’t see the need for such secrecy.
Inside the ‘suitably opaque’ response to a toxic sewage spill at Chalk River nuclear lab
Internal communications raise questions about transparency at nuclear organizations amid pollution incident
Brett Forester · CBC News ·Aug 20, 2024
When a nuclear research facility was directed to stop polluting the Ottawa River with toxic sewage earlier this year, at least one official seemed pleased with the non-transparency of the facility’s public messaging.
“This is suitably opaque,” wrote Jennifer Fry in an April 24 email to Jeremy Latta, director of communications and government reporting at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), a Crown corporation.
The two AECL officials were discussing a planned public communiqué from Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) to be released that day. AECL owns the Chalk River nuclear research campus near Deep River, Ont., about 150 kilometres upstream from Ottawa, but outsources site management to private sector corporate consortium CNL.
Chalk River’s sewage plant began failing toxicity tests on Feb. 21, meaning the treated wastewater, or effluent, was confirmed toxic to fish. (One hundred per cent of the rainbow trout directly subjected to the effluent died over a four-day period, records show. A death rate over 50 per cent fails the test.)
And so on April 23, after two months of this toxic water going into the Ottawa River, Environment Canada stepped in, prompting both CNL’s communiqué and AECL’s assessment of it.
“Reads fine to me, not major risks,” Latta had written, “and who knows if it gets traction.”
Those emails are among more than 100 pages of internal communications released by AECL under access-to-information law, which are raising questions about transparency around the pollution incident.
CBC News requested an interview with an AECL spokesperson to discuss the corporation’s handling of the incident based on a review of the records, and Latta agreed to speak last week.
Latta defended the response, maintaining there was no deliberate effort to hide information. He brushed off Fry’s comment as one person’s opinion………………………………………………………………………
“We have absolutely no confidence in the fact that, if there is a major incident, they will disclose it to us,” said Haymond, a vocal opponent of CNL’s plan to build a radioactive waste dump at Chalk River.
“It just really speaks to the challenge in the relationship where they profess to want to have better communications, and said they would make the effort. Time and time again, there’s incidents which demonstrate that that’s not happening.”…………………………………….
CNL ultimately didn’t answer many of CBC’s questions directly at the time, including one explicitly asking whether the effluent was going into the Ottawa River……………………….. https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/chalk-river-sewage-foi-documents-1.7299822
‘Very serious’ nuclear situation could happen ‘at any moment’ in Ukraine, says IAEA chief
Cathy Newman, Presenter 4 News 20 Aug 24
We spoke to Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Cathy Newman: Let’s start with Zaporizhzhia, because earlier you said that safety was deteriorating there after this drone strike. How critical would you say it is?
Rafael Grossi: Well, we could have a very serious situation any moment. Because when you see the amount of military activity surrounding the plant………………………….The physical integrity of the facility is being challenged. So, this is why we say that what we see is a deterioration. The condition of the plant, I should say, is that it’s not producing energy at the moment, is in jargon what we call shut down. But there’s a lot of material there, a lot of nuclear material there. There’s a lot of spent fuel there. Fresh fuel. So, things that if impact could trigger the release of radioactivity.
Cathy Newman: So the risk has been minimised, but it hasn’t been removed, clearly. I mean, in theory, another Chernobyl is possible?
Rafael Grossi: ………………………………………… I would say, as I was just mentioning, you have all of this material around and you could have a situation theoretically where because of the loss of external power, which has occurred, we had nine episodes of complete blackouts of the plant. So no cooling function. So if you lose all that, you could eventually have a meltdown.
Cathy Newman: So it’s perilous, clearly. I wonder whether you think the risk of the Kursk plant, ……………. Russia is now fortifying around that plant. I mean, is that potentially more risky because it’s a much more volatile situation.
Rafael Grossi: It is certainly serious and we should take it very, very seriously. We are taking it, the agency at the IAEA, very, very seriously. This nuclear power plant is, I would say, within artillery range already. You have just informed that the incursion of the Ukrainian troops, is a few miles, a couple dozen kilometres into Russian territory and just a few miles, in kilometres is about between 20 and 30 km from the plant itself. And there is a technical aspect here. You were just mentioning Chernobyl. The reactors here, you have six reactors in Kursk. You have two reactors that are being decommissioned. You have two reactors that are operating. No shutdown, operating when you have hot reactors. Anything that could happen there could be maximised in this sense.
And then two other units being built. The two reactors that are operating are of a type called RBMK, which is exactly the type of reactors, an old model type of reactor was the one, like the ones that were in Chernobyl. These reactors have a particularity. Normally when you look at a nuclear reactor is a dome. There is a concrete and metal protection. These two reactors don’t have that, don’t have any of that. The core of these reactors is open. Is like, as if you were here and you could see the fuel elements there. So, God forbid, was there an impact on the plant, we could have a very serious situation…………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.channel4.com/news/very-serious-nuclear-situation-could-happen-at-any-moment-in-ukraine-says-iaea-chief
Defence Correspondents: The Journalistic Wing of the Military?
There are stenographers – and then there are UK defence correspondents.
DECLASSIFIED UK, DES FREEDMAN, 19 August 2024
An analysis of broadcasters’ online coverage of defence spending and strategy since Keir Starmer won the election shows that reporting is virtually 100% in line with the government’s own priorities.
Critical voices, where they are included, are entirely from the right.
All 20 articles posted under ‘defence’ since 4 July – 14 from Sky, 5 from the BBC and 1 from ITV – faithfully reproduce the government’s agenda.
These include its proposals for a defence review, its promise to increase military spending to 2.5% of GDP, its commitment to Ukraine and NATO (described on the BBC by foreign secretary David Lammy as ‘part of Britain’s DNA’).
Its notion that there is a need to restore confidence in the military in order to face up to “rapidly increasing global threats” (as Sky quoted defence secretary John Healey) also features.
The only critical voices that appear are Conservative shadow ministers, hawkish think tank spokespeople and military ‘experts’, all speaking about how vital it is to boost defence spending, which currently stands at £64.6bn a year (2.32% of GDP).
Such spending is apparently necessary to confront what the army’s chief Sir Roland Walker has described as an “axis of upheaval” composed of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.
Sky quoted Walker without comment on 23 July as saying that “there was an ‘urgent need’ for the British Army to rebuild its ability to deter future wars with credible fighting power”.
Churnalism
Much of the coverage feels like a press release from the Ministry of Defence, which is hardly surprising given that MoD statements are liberally incorporated – without challenge – into news reports.
For example, ITV News’ report of 16 July on Labour’s “root and branch” review of defence draws heavily on the MoD’s release earlier that day
Its only deviation from government spin is that it also quotes the shadow armed forces minister Andrew Bowie saying that “the country didn’t need another review, and instead ‘we just need to get on and spend more money on defence’.”
Both the BBC and Sky ran lengthy, gushing reports on the speeches given by the defence secretary and General Walker at the Royal United Services Institute’s ‘Land Warfare’ conference on 22/23 July, unambiguously pushing the line that increasing defence spending was crucial to securing peace.
None of these pieces featured comments about the huge political and economic risks of increasing defence spending and a possible acceleration, not reduction, of instability.
Guns not butter
This isn’t just a matter of excluding voices from the left arguing for a completely different set of priorities. There isn’t even room for mainstream economists like Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, criticising the way recent governments have presented the proposed hike and making the obvious, if important, point that “[m]ore money for defence means less for everything else”…………………………………………………………………………………………..
‘Pre-war world’
The tone of recent coverage is, however, entirely in line with what has gone on before where news broadcasters have acted more as cheerleaders of the UK government’s strategic defence priorities than impartial journalists.
For example, following a widely reported speech in January by then defence secretary Grant Shapps, committing the UK to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, Sky News launched a series called “Prepared for War?” in April.
This examined whether the UK was ready for the “possibility of armed conflict” and was based on interviews with defence specialists, former military officers and academics, all of whom were singing to the same pro-war hymn sheet.
It reported on the emergence of a “national defence plan” to deal with “mounting concerns about Russia, China and Iran” and uncritically embraced the idea that we are now in a “pre-war world”.
This has all the trappings of a drive to war.
Seduced
Broadcasters’ favourite defence-related stories appear to be ones where they can show dazzling images of the latest military hardware.
As Richard Norton-Taylor, former defence correspondent for the Guardian and now contributor to Declassified UK, has noted: “The MoD knows how to seduce journalists, especially those writing for specialist defence publications – often used as primary sources by mainstream journalists – by showing off new weapons.”
So in January, Sky News ran a puff piece on a new laser system, DragonFire, developed by the MoD to the tune of around £100m, that spoke of its “pinpoint accuracy” taken straight from the MoD’s own press release. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
As always, an uncritical embrace of the UK’s strategic geopolitical interests comes before any commitment to transparency and even to exploring the claim that increasing military spending might not be the best way of de-escalating rising tensions across the globe.
How do we account for this deference on the part of defence correspondents?
Declassified UK has run several stories examining this question and revealing the preferential treatment of favoured journalists, sanctions against those who ask tough questions, the close contacts between correspondents and defence and security-related officials and indeed the existence of a revolving door between journalism and military PR.
When it comes to reporting on defence and security, ‘[d]eference, as much as secrecy, remains the English disease’, notes Norton-Taylor.
Indeed, all too often, it’s not a specific strategy so much as ideological congruence between the defence establishment and defence journalists about what is understood to be protecting the “national interest”.
That means that while the UK ramps up its support for Ukraine and continues to stand by Israel in defending it from possible attacks from Iran, British broadcast journalists are operating effectively as part of a coordinated effort to boost defence spending.
Their silence on stories such as the training of Israeli troops inside the UK or the number of UK military flights from Cyprus to Israel is just as troubling as their more visible and uncritical amplification of successive UK governments’ defence priorities.
This isn’t journalism but public relations https://www.declassifieduk.org/defence-correspondents-the-journalistic-wing-of-the-military/
Ukraine could trigger ‘another Chernobyl’ – ex-US Army officer.
A meltdown at the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant would make the region uninhabitable, Stanislav Krapivnik has warned
https://www.rt.com/russia/602744-ukraine-may-trigger-another-chernobyl/ 21 Aug 24
Ukraine’s armed forces could cause a nuclear disaster that would affect most of Europe if they strike the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, former US Army officer Stanislav Krapivnik has warned.
In an interview with RT on Saturday, Krapivnik discussed the difference between a dirty bomb and a nuclear bomb, explaining that while a dirty bomb does not have the critical mass or enriched material, it could cause large scale contamination if it hits nuclear waste.
If the coolant system in an active plant is targeted, it would cause a “nuclear meltdown” which could lead to an incident similar to Fukushima or Chernobyl, he added. Such an event would impact most of Europe, especially at this time of the year “when the wind blows northwest.”
Krapivnik predicted that “if there is enough evidence” of the threat, it would “force a very large reaction” from the Russian government, as a meltdown at the Kursk plant would make the region uninhabitable.
“And the fallout is going to go straight to the northwest into Europe,” he said, adding: “It’s going to hit the Poles, the Germans, the Danes, the Scandinavian countries,” right into the UK. “But apparently the leadership of those nations really doesn’t give a damn.”
On Friday, Russian military journalist Marat Khairullin reported, citing sources, that Kiev is preparing to detonate a dirty atomic bomb targeting nuclear waste at either Russia’s Zaporozhye NPP or the Kursk NPP.
While the nuclear plant in Zaporozhye, the largest such facility in Europe, has been shut down, the plant in Kursk Region is operational.
The Russian Defense Ministry responded to the reports by saying that any attempts to create a “man-made disaster in the European part of the continent” would be met with “tough military and military-technical countermeasures.” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called on the international community “to immediately condemn the provocative actions prepared by the Kiev regime.”
Kiev has denied the allegations. Neither the UN nor the International Atomic Energy Agency have addressed the threat.
Biden approved nuclear strategy focusing on China: Report
President directed US forces to prepare for ‘possible coordinated nuclear confrontations with Russia, China and North Korea,’ New York Times reports
Rabia Iclal Turan |21.08.2024 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/biden-approved-nuclear-strategy-focusing-on-china-report/3308990
WASHINGTON
President Joe Biden approved a classified document in March directing US forces to get ready for potential “coordinated nuclear confrontations involving Russia, China and North Korea,” the New York Times reported Tuesday.
The document, which is revised approximately every four years, is classified to such a degree that there are no electronic versions available. Only a limited number of hard copies have been distributed to select national security officials and Pentagon leaders, the newspaper reported.
The newspaper added, however, that in recent speeches, two senior administration officials were allowed to allude to the change prior to a more comprehensive and unclassified update to Congress that is anticipated before Biden’s term concludes.
The Pentagon believes that China’s nuclear arsenal will rival the size and diversity of US and Russian stockpiles over the next decade, the Times reported.
“The president recently released updated guidance for nuclear weapons employment to address the presence of multiple nuclear-armed adversaries,” the newspaper cited Vipin Narang, a nuclear strategist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who previously worked at the Pentagon, as saying earlier this month before returning to academia.
He further noted that this guidance specifically considers “the significant increase in the size and diversity” of China’s nuclear arsenal, it added.
In June, the National Security Council’s senior director for arms control and nonproliferation, Pranay Vaddi, said Biden “recently issued updated nuclear weapons employment guidance, which takes into account the realities of a new nuclear era.”
“It emphasizes the need to account for the growth and diversity of the PRC’s nuclear arsenal—and the need to deter Russia, the PRC and North Korea simultaneously,” he added, referring to the People’s Republic of China, China’s official name.
White House National Security Council spokesperson Sean Savett told Anadolu that the US nuclear policy is updated regularly as part of their efforts to “reduce nuclear risks and maintain stable deterrence.”
“This administration—like the four administrations before it—issued a Nuclear Posture Review and Nuclear Weapons Employment Planning Guidance. While the specific text of the Guidance is classified, its existence is in no way secret. The Guidance issued earlier this year is not a response to any single entity, country, or threat,” he added.
Democrats Release Insanely Hawkish Middle East Policy Platform
“President Biden and Vice President Harris believe a strong, secure, and democratic Israel is vital to the interests of the United States,” the platform reads. “Their commitment to Israel’s security, its qualitative military edge, its right to defend itself, and the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding is ironclad.”
The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding is the agreement by which the United States agrees to continue sending Israel $3.8 billion a year to spend on weapons.
Caitlin Johnstone, Aug 21, 2024
Celebrity progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez falsely claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris “is working tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza” at the Democratic National Convention on Monday night. There is literally no evidentiary basis anywhere for this assertion. She made it up.
Kamala Harris is not “working tirelessly” to do anything at this time besides become the next president. Her own staff are saying she is opposed to an arms embargo on Israel and won’t consider cutting or conditioning military aid, which is the only way the Israeli government can be effectively forced to stop sabotaging a peace deal so that the US-backed genocide can finally end. Saying you’ll continue pouring military explosives into a regime that is using those military explosives to conduct regular massacres of civilians is the exact opposite of working tirelessly to secure a ceasefire.
“This is false, it’s propaganda, and it’s making people misunderstand the issue,” Current Affairs’ Nathan Robinson said of AOC’s statement. “The Biden administration could have imposed a ceasefire anytime it wanted to. The only reason there isn’t one is that Biden has made sure Israel has no incentive to agree to one.”
As we deal with this crap, the DNC has approved a 2024 party platform whose section on the middle east is so surprisingly hawkish that it largely reads like it could have been written by some of Washington’s most war-horny Republicans. It repeatedly calls its support for Israel and the continuation of arms shipments thereto “ironclad”. It criticizes Trump as having been too soft on Iran, for god’s sake.
After boasting about the Biden administration’s bombing campaign against the “Iranian-linked Houthi forces” in Yemen, its “precision airstrikes on key Iranian-linked targets,” and its success in neutralizing Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel after Israel assassinated multiple Iranian military officials in Syria, the platform says that this “stands in sharp contrast to Trump’s fecklessness and weakness in the face of Iranian aggression during his presidency.”
Then they literally attack Trump for not going to war with Iran:
“In 2018, when Iranian-backed militias repeatedly attacked the U.S. consulate in Basra, Iraq Trump’s only response was to close our diplomatic facility. In June 2019, when Iran shot down a U.S. surveillance aircraft operating in international airspace above the Straits of Hormuz, Trump responded by tweet and then abruptly called off any actual retaliation, causing confusion and concern among his own national security team. In September 2019, when Iranian-backed groups threatened global energy markets by attacking Saudi oil infrastructure, Trump failed to respond against Iran or its proxies. In January 2020, when Iran, for the first and only time in its history, directly launched ballistic missiles against U.S. troops in western Iraq, Trump mocked the resulting Traumatic Brain Injuries suffered by dozens of American servicemembers as mere ‘headaches’ — and again, took no action.”
The “national security team” who suffered “confusion and concern” when Trump opted not to wade into a middle eastern war of unfathomable horror includes psychopathic war criminal John Bolton, who was reportedly “devastated” when Trump called off a deadly military assault on Iran in retaliation for its shooting down the aforementioned (unmanned) surveillance aircraft.
When you’re siding with John Bolton on whether to bomb Iran, you’re as insanely hawkish as it gets.
“President Biden and Vice President Harris believe a strong, secure, and democratic Israel is vital to the interests of the United States,” the platform reads. “Their commitment to Israel’s security, its qualitative military edge, its right to defend itself, and the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding is ironclad.”
The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding is the agreement by which the United States agrees to continue sending Israel $3.8 billion a year to spend on weapons.
This comes as Kamala Harris’ current and former staff members report that not only will the vice president refuse to cut or condition military support to Israel, she will also refuse to re-enter the Iran deal to ease tensions in the region. The Times of Israel cites congressman Brad Schneider saying he was told by the Harris campaign’s Jewish outreach chief that “the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee would oppose a return to the Iran nuclear deal.”
The Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was one of the only decent foreign policy moves made by the Obama administration, and killing it was one of the nastiest things Trump did as president — along with his other recklessly hawkish actions against Iran like implementing starvation sanctions and assassinating Soleimani. But rather than pledging to re-enter the Obama era of de-escalation and detente with Iran, the Democrats are attacking Trump for not fighting a war with Iran while pledging ironclad support for the nation that’s doing everything it can to get that war started.
So yeah, that’s the Democratic Party for you. Vote for them and you get a nicer-looking mask on the blood-spattered face of the US war machine. It’ll kill just as many middle eastern kids as the Republicans will, but it will kill them under the presidency of a woman of color with “she/her” in her Twitter bio.
Nuclear unicorn Newcleo to move holding company from UK to France to tap EU funds
The move comes as the startup targets a €1bn equity round
Sifted Kai Nicol-Schwarz, 21 Aug 24
Nuclear power startup Newcleo is moving its holding company from the UK to France, as the company looks to tap EU funding pools in its bid to raise a €1bn equity round.
Newcleo said in its annual accounts, released yesterday, that it had announced to shareholders and employees in January that it was making the move to increase the potential of attracting “significant funding from EU financial institutions”.
“While we are moving the location of our holding company, our plans for the UK are unchanged and we remain committed to investing and building next-generation SMRs to generate electricity for the UK grid and industry,” a Newcleo spokesperson told Sifted. Sifted understands that the move would not involve employees relocating.
…………………………………………………………. founder and CEO Stefano Buono told Sifted in May that the company would need to raise billions more if it’s to realise its ambitions of building a revenue-making commercial reactor by the early 2030s.
Newcleo is hoping French and EU institutional funding can help it get there. “The rationale for the restructure is partly to improve the potential to attract funding from French and other EU financial institutions in the future,” the company said in its accounts.
French government-funded investment bank Bpifrance has “strict” requirements on holding companies being based in the country, explains Tommy Stadlen, cofounder and partner at Giant Ventures.
………………………………..Newcleo’s average monthly cash burn is €13m for the first half of 2024 and it made a loss of €57.5m in 2023 — up from €18.1m in 2022 — according to its accounts. The company had €221m of cash in the bank on 30 June 2024.
https://sifted.eu/articles/nuclear-newcleo-raise-startup-france
Final investment decision on new nuclear plant Sizewell C is delayed
The crucial final investment decision (Fid) for the new nuclear power
plant Sizewell C is unlikely to be agreed until 2025, according to recent
reports. Financial sector publication Bloomberg reported that anonymous
sources close to the project said negotiations between potential private
investors were moving more slowly than had been expected.
The Fid had already been delayed by the general election, but new energy secretary Ed
Miliband indicated his support for Sizewell in an early speech to
parliament before the 2024 summer recess. Bloomberg reported negotiations
with Centrica, Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation, Amber Infrastructure
Group and Schroders Greencoat are ongoing.
Earlier in July, Centrica chiefnexecutive officer Chris O’Shea said: “An investment decision this year would be dependent upon how the government and the Sizewell company want to
move. “We are able to move as quickly as the other parties, but I think
we should be realistic that the government have been in office less than
three weeks and they need to figure out what they want to do.”
New Civil Engineer 20th Aug 2024
-
Archives
- October 2026 (120)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
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
