Big costs sink flagship nuclear project and they’ll sink future small modular reactor projects too.
By Susan O’Donnell and M.V. Ramana, 024, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/01/21/big-costs-sink-flagship-nuclear-project/
The major news in the world of nuclear energy last November was the collapse of the Carbon Free Power Project in the United States. The project was to build six NuScale small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Given NuScale’s status as the flagship SMR design not just in the U.S. but even globally, the project’s cancellation should ring alarm bells in Canada. Yet SMRs are touted as a climate action strategy although it is becoming clearer by the day that they will delay a possible transition to net-zero energy and render it more expensive.
The NuScale project failed because there were not enough customers for its expensive electricity. Construction cost estimates for the project had been steadily rising—from USD 4.2 billion for 600 megawatts in 2018 to a staggering USD 9.3 billion (CAD 12.8 billion) for 462 megawatts. Using a combination of government subsidies, potentially up to USD 4.2 billion, and an opaque calculation method, NuScale claimed that it would produce electricity at USD 89 per megawatt-hour. When standard U.S. government subsidies are included, electricity from wind and solar energy projects, including battery storage, could be as cheap as USD 12 to USD 31 per megawatt-hour.
A precursor to the failed NuScale project was mPower, which also received massive funding from the U.S. Department of Energy. Described by The New York Times as the leader in the SMR race, mPower could not find investors or customers. By 2017, the project was essentially dead. Likewise, a small reactor in South Korea proved to be “not practical or economic”.
Ignoring this dire economic reality, provincial governments planning for SMRs – Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta – published a “strategic plan” seemingly designed to convince the federal government to open its funding floodgates. Offering no evidence about the costs of these technologies, the report asserts: “The power companies assessed that SMRs have the potential to be an economically competitive source of energy.”
For its part, the federal government has coughed up grants totalling more than $175 million to five different SMR projects in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan. The Canada Infrastructure Bank loaned $970 million to Ontario Power Generation to develop its Darlington New Nuclear project. And the Canada Energy Regulator’s 2023 Canada’s Energy Future report envisioned a big expansion of nuclear energy based on wishful thinking and unrealistic assumptions about SMRs.
Canada’s support is puzzling when considering other official statements about nuclear energy. In 2021, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said that nuclear power must compete with renewable energy in the market. The previous year, then Environment Minister and current Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson also emphasized competition with other sources of energy, concluding “the winner will be the one that can provide electrical energy at the lowest cost.” Given the evidence about high costs, nuclear power cannot compete with renewable energy, let alone provide electricity at the lowest cost.
Investing huge amounts of taxpayer money in technologies that are uncompetitive is bad enough, but an equally serious problem is wasting time. The primary justification for this government largesse is dealing with climate change. But the urgency of that crisis requires action now, not in two decades.
All the SMR designs planned in Canada’s provinces are still on the drawing board. The design furthest along in the regulatory process – the BWRX-300 slated for Ontario’s Darlington site – does not yet have a licence to begin construction. New Brunswick’s choices – a sodium cooled fast reactor and a molten salt reactor – are demonstrably problematic and will take longer to build.
Recently built nuclear plants have taken, on average, 9.8 years from start of construction to producing electricity. The requisite planning, regulatory evaluations of new designs, raising the necessary finances, and finding customers who want to pay higher electricity bills might add another decade.
SMR vendors have to raise not only the billions needed to build the reactor but also the funding to complete their designs. NuScale spent around USD 1.8 billion (CAD 2.5 billion), and the reactor was still left with many unresolved safety problems. ARC-100 and Moltex proponents in New Brunswick have each asked for at least $500 million to further develop their designs. Moltex has been unable to obtain the required funding to match the $50.5 million federal grant it received in 2021.
Adverse economics killed the flagship NuScale SMR project. There is no reason to believe the costs of SMR designs proposed in Canada will be any lower. Are government officials attentive enough to hear the clanging alarm bells?
Susan O’Donnell is adjunct research professor and primary investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University in Fredericton. M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia.
At least 25 killed in Russian-occupied Ukraine following missile strike, officials say
BY MIRANDA NAZZARO – 01/21/24, https://thehill.com/policy/international/4420260-at-least-25-killed-in-russian-occupied-ukraine-following-missile-strike-officials-say/
The shelling of a market in a part of Russian-occupied Ukraine killed at least 25 people on Sunday, The Associated Press reported.
Denis Pushilin, head of the Russian-installed authorities in the city of Donetsk, said another 20 people, including two children, were wounded in the strike on the outskirts of the city, the AP reported. He claimed shells were fired by the Ukrainian military.
Pushilin claimed the area was hit with a 155 mm caliber and 152 mm caliber artillery, with shells being fired from the direction of Ukrainian cities Kurakhove and Krasnohorivka, per the news wire.
Kyiv did not comment on the event and the claims could not be independently verified, the news wire noted.
The Russian Foreign Ministry, in a translated statement, called the incident a “barbaric terrorist act against the civilian population of Russia.”
“The terrorist attacks of the Kiev regime clearly indicate its lack of political will for peace and the settlement of the conflict by diplomatic means,” the statement said. “The need to achieve all the goals and objectives of a special military operation is obvious. Security threats and acts of terrorism should not come from the territory of Ukraine.”
A fire also broke out at a chemical transport terminal at Russia’s Ust-Luga port after two explosions, the AP said, citing local media reports. Local media reported the port was attacked by Ukrainian drones and a gas tank exploded.
Yuri Zapalatsky, who heads Russia’s Kingisepp district, where the port is based, reported no causalities and that the area was on high alert, the AP reported.
Russia’s Ministry of Defense also announced Sunday that Moscow’s forces took control of the village Krokhmalne in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region, the news wire added. Ukrainian forces confirmed the settlement was occupied, describing the incident as a “temporary phenomenon.”
The war between Ukraine and Russia is approaching its two-year mark next month, with thousands of troops killed on each side.
Western mercenaries used to fill Kiev’s expertise gaps, ex-CIA man tells RT
French fighters killed in Ukraine could have been clandestine weapons specialists, Larry Johnson has said…05
Ukraine is likely experiencing a shortage of soldiers capable of operating complex Western weapons systems, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson has told RT. A Russian report this week about a strike on “French mercenaries” in Kharkov may be a warning to would-be clandestine arms technicians that Paris plans to supply, he believes.
In response to the Russian Defense Ministry’s statement, France has denied having mercenaries in Ukraineor any other part of the world. Moscow claimed that approximately 60 foreign fighters, mostly French, were killed in the long-range attack. Meanwhile, President Emmanuel Macron has announced plans to supply additional air-launched SCALP cruise missiles to assist Kiev in its fight.
“I strongly suspect that many of those French ‘mercenaries’ – and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Brits and Americans scattered in there as well – are being brought in to help operate systems that they’ve been trained on previously in prior military careers.”
He named the US-made long-range Patriot anti-aircraft missile and the Storm Shadow, the British counterpart to SCALP, as examples of donated arms that may require competent foreign staff to deploy.
France is making itself a target by openly arming Kiev, Johnson told the broadcaster, contrasting current events with how the US acted in the past, when it sought to undermine the USSR:
“When the US ran covert operations through the CIA to fund the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets, it was done with some measure of secrecy and at least keeping up a pretense that we were not directly in conflict.
“I think Russia sent a very clear message in killing these mercenaries: If you are going to send them over here, if you are going to send that materiel, we’re gonna kill you.”
Johnson believes that Moscow could have acted in a far bolder manner in targeting Ukraine’s foreign donors, and that its reluctance to do so has been taken in the West as a sign of weakness.
“It’s not that, but the West has a track record of misinterpreting Russia on many points.”
Comment: Kiev is in critical manpower crisis as Zelensky pressures anyone semi-upright to take up arms and pretend they are soldiers…women, elderly, the infirm. French mercenaries? In a minute.
The following information is in regard to French PMCs (Private Military Company):
Site: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
With the ongoing developments in Ukraine, French PMCs offer their services to train Ukrainian forces in Eastern European countries. Since June 2022, they have been bringing onboard volunteers to participate in hostilities on Kiev’s side. Former members of the armed forces of EU countries and nationals of African countries are their first choice. French nationals taking part in the hostilities in Ukraine often get there via foreign PMCs or the Ukrainian International Legion.
Under French law, most of them do not fall under the Criminal Code article on mercenarism, because their remuneration for taking part in combat operations does not exceed the salary paid under a corresponding position in the French armed forces. Ukrainians that go to Ukraine from France in order to participate in the conflict, including the ones who are “on leave” from the French Foreign Legion are not qualified as mercenaries even if they hold French citizenship, since the people who are originally from a country participating in an armed conflict cannot be considered as such.
Military support functions are often delegated to “expendable” PMCs which recruit low-level personnel on the ground. A similar arrangement is used in Ukraine as well. Former French Foreign Legion members hailing from the countries in question often act as instructors. Ample supply of personnel from the ranks of former legionnaires makes it simple to create and use expendable PMCs for missions where use of force and/or participation in hostilities is likely.
About 100 French PMCs operate internationally. They are usually headed by former gendarmerie officers, and sometimes by retired security service officers. Mostly, these firms are mission-specific outfits and are put together for limited periods (for example, Lyon-based Byblos provided evacuation of French citizens from combat zones early on during the special military operation in Ukraine).
The most prominent French PMCs are as follows:
Aeneas Groupe, founded in 2004, provides consulting, security, and defence services, and trains personnel in France and abroad.
Anticip performs a variety of missions in war zones, such as crisis management, physical protection, armed escort, and site protection. It has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan and has subsidiaries in Nigeria and the UAE.
Chiron participates in the training of Ukrainian special forces. The instructors are former military members and French special service employees.
Défense Conseil International (DCI) is one of the leading companies of that kind and is unofficially used by the French Defence Ministry to perform a wide range of missions in the interests of friendly countries where, for some reasons, the use the French Armed Forces is impractical. It operates through 23 training centres in France and branches in 50 countries, such as Brunei, India, Kuwait, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Qatar, and the UAE, to name a few. It provides combat training for ground, air and naval forces, special forces, advanced training in cybersecurity and radio electronic warfare, as well as interaction between different branches of the military. DCI operates through six subsidiary PMCs, the most famous of which – La Cofras – was hired by international organisations for demining in the Gulf area, Angola and Mozambique.
Gallice Défense is a group based in France, Europe and Africa that was founded in 2007. Its employees work under short-term contracts in the Sahel, LAC, Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
Geos was founded in 1998 by Stephane Gerardin, a former employee of the Main Directorate of Foreign Security (foreign intelligence), to address specific tasks abroad. It is staffed mostly by former employees of special services, the Defence Ministry and the Interior Ministry. It specialises in providing government customers with consulting services, economic intelligence, risk assessment-based analytical materials for major projects in various regions of the world, but also offers physical security and protection services. Operating in 80-plus countries, Geos has offices in Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Germany, Libya, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, Saudi Arabia, the UK, Ukraine and Venezuela,. The company is actively involved in training AFU personnel. Since June 2022, it has been recruiting volunteers to participate in combat operations on Kiev’s side. In total, at least 2,000 people have been recruited. The European Peace Foundation provides the funding. Candidates are trained in Eastern Europe.
Groupe Corpguard was founded in 2006. In 2016, it concluded a contract with the Government of Côte d’Ivoire as part of the operation to maintain peace and stability in the country.
Salamandre was founded in 1996. It brings together intelligence, counterintelligence and nuclear specialists. It has close ties with the French Directorate General for External Security and often acts on its behalf.
KBS Sécurité was founded in Lyon in 2007 as a company specialising in arms and military equipment sales. Currently, it offers security services and operates in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.
Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) wants to delay completion of its review on waste dump
Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) has requested the
deadline for its opinion on Posiva Oy’s operating licence application for
the world’s first used fuel repository to be extended until the end of
2024. In September last year, it said it would not complete its review by
the end of 2023 as originally planned.
Radioactive waste management company
Posiva submitted its application, together with related information, to the
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (TEM) on 30 December 2021 for
an operating licence for the used fuel encapsulation plant and final
disposal facility currently under construction at Olkiluoto.
The repository
is expected to begin operations in the mid-2020s. Posiva is applying for an
operating licence for a period from March 2024 to the end of 2070. The
government will make the final decision on Posiva’s application, but a
positive opinion by STUK is required beforehand. The regulator began its
review in May 2022 after concluding Posiva had provided sufficient
material. The ministry had requested STUK’s opinion on the application by
the end of 2023.
However, STUK announced in September that its safety
assessment and opinion on the application was taking longer than expected
and would not be completed by that deadline.
World Nuclear News 19th Jan 2024
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/STUK-requests-extension-to-repository-review-deadl
A new ‘Cold War’ on a deadly hot planet?
China and the US must cut war-like posturing and face a world in desperate danger
By Tom Engelhardt, Tom Dispatch/Common Dreams
Tell me, what planet are we actually on? All these decades later, are we really involved in a “second” or “new” Cold War? It’s certainly true that, as late as the 1980s, the superpowers (or so they then liked to think of themselves), the United States and the Soviet Union, were still engaged in just such a Cold War, something that might have seemed almost positive at the time. After all, a “hot” one could have involved the use of the planet’s two great nuclear arsenals and the potential obliteration of just about everything.
But today? In case you haven’t noticed, the phrase “new Cold War” or “second Cold War” has indeed crept into our media vocabulary. (Check it out at Wikipedia.) Admittedly, unlike John F. Kennedy, Joe Biden has not actually spoken about bearing “the burden of a long, twilight struggle.” Still, the actions of his foreign policy crew — in spirit, like the president, distinctly old Cold Warriors — have helped make the very idea that we’re in a new version of just such a conflict part of everyday media chatter.
And yet, let’s stop and think about just what planet we’re actually on. In the wake of August 6 and August 9, 1945, when two atomic bombs destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was little doubt about how “hot” a war between future nuclear-armed powers might get. And today, of course, we know that, if such a word can even be used in this context, a relatively modest nuclear conflict between, say, India and Pakistan might actually obliterate billions of us, in part by creating a — yes, brrr — “nuclear winter,” that would give the very phrase “cold” war a distinctly new meaning.
These days, despite an all too “hot” war in Ukraine in which the U.S. has, at least indirectly, faced off against the crew that replaced those Soviet cold warriors of yore, the new Cold War references are largely aimed at this country’s increasingly tense, ever more militarized relationship with China. Its focus is both the island of Taiwan and much of the rest of Asia. Worse yet, both countries seem driven to intensify that struggle.
In case you hadn’t noticed, Joe Biden made a symbolic and much-publicized stop in Vietnam (yes, Vietnam!) while returning from the September G20 summit meeting in India. There, he insisted that he didn’t “want to contain China” or halt its rise. He also demanded that it play by “the rules of the game” (and you know just whose rules and game that was). In the process, he functionally publicized his administration’s ongoing attempt to create an anti-China coalition extending from Japan and South Korea (only recently absorbed into a far deeper military relationship with this country), all the way to, yes, India itself.
And (yes, as well!) the Biden administration has upped military aid to Japan, Taiwan (including $85 million previously meant for Egypt), Australia (including a promise to supply it with its own nuclear attack submarines), and beyond. In the process, it’s also been reinforcing the American military position in the Pacific from Okinawa, Guam, and the Philippines to — yes again — Australia. Meanwhile, one four-star American general has even quite publicly predicted that a war between the U.S. and China is likely to break out by 2025, while urging his commanders to prepare for “the China fight”! Similarly, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines has called China the “leading and most consequential threat to U.S. national security” and the Biden foreign policy team has been hard at work encircling — the Cold War phrase would have been “containing” — China, both diplomatically and militarily.
On the Chinese side, that country’s military has been similarly ramping up its air and naval activities around and ever closer to the island of Taiwan in an ominous fashion, even as it increases its military presence in places like the South China Sea (as has the U.S.). Oh, and just in case you hadn’t noticed, with a helping hand from Russia, Beijing is also putting more money and effort into expanding its already sizable nuclear arsenal.
Yes, this latest version of a Cold War is (to my mind at least) already a little too hot to handle. And yet, despite that reality, it couldn’t be more inappropriate to use the term “new Cold War” right now on a globe where a previously unimagined version of a hot war is staring us all, including most distinctly the United States and China, in the face.
As a start, keep in mind that the two great powers facing off so ominously against each other have long faced off no less ominously against the planet itself. After all, the United States remains the historically greatest greenhouse gas emitter of all time, while China is the greatest of the present moment (with the U.S. still in second place and Americans individually responsible for significantly more emissions than their Chinese counterparts). The results have been telling in both countries…………………………………………………………… more https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/01/21/a-new-cold-war-on-a-deadly-hot-planet/
Even Britain’s ruling Tory party fear that their “Nuclear Roadmap” plan will end up on the scrap heap.
More nuclear power is the obvious solution to our energy security and Net Zero dilemmas. That doesn’t mean it is ever going to happen. Conservative Home, 19 Jan 24
Last week, Claire Coutinho published the Government’s “nuclear roadmap”. Sticking with Boris Johnson’s target of having a quarter of our electricity from nuclear by 2050, this attempts to explain how we achieve the quadrupling of nuclear capacity required to achieve the necessary 24 gigawatts (GW).
Rishi Sunak calls nuclear the “perfect antidote to the energy challenges facing Britain”. ………………………..
But the Government’s nuclear ambitions face an immediate stumbling block. At present, our nuclear capacity stands at 5.9GW, produced by five power stations. These are all owned by EDF, the French state energy group. Four of those plants – producing 4.7GW – are set to close in 2028.
EDF has floated keeping them open for longer. Yet even that would require Britain to massively ramp up its nuclear capacity in the next three decades to for us to have any hope of achieving the Government’s aim to come over a bit Doctor Manhatten. Following this, Coutinho has established an ambition to invest in new nuclear capacity of between 3GW and 7GW every five years from 2030 to 2044.
Work is already in progress. Hinkley Point C in Somerset is under construction. Sizewall C is planned for Suffolk, with a final investment decision due to be made by the end of this year. The Government is considering approving the construction of a third similarly sized power station. Additionally, ministers want to build a fleet of “small modular reactors” alongside these larger plants.
………………………………….. Johnson’s tongue-in-cheek vision of an SMR in “every Labour seat” remains as much of a fantasy as any of his mooted grands projets. Putting so much faith in SMRs to deliver our nuclear dreams is wishful thinking by Coutinho. But that is true of her whole “roadmap” and the ambitions behind them.
As Sam Dumitriu points out, when Hinkley opens in 2028, it will not only be the first nuclear power station built in Britain for over three decades, but the second most expensive nuclear power station built in history on a pound-per-megawatt basis. Having been due to open in the early 2020s, it is now expected to cost £32 billion. Some expect its construction could be further delayed into the 2030s.
This bodes poorly for Coutinho’s touted “nuclear awakening”. ………….
Capital costs make up around 60 per cent of nuclear’s levelised cost of energy. The average has been estimated at $6041-per-kilowatt – over 50 per cent more than coal and 500 more than gas. Factoring in that building a nuclear power station in Britain usually takes around 13 years, and it becomes obvious why investing in nuclear remains unattractive. Financing Hinkley involved the Government agreeing to a wholly uncompetitive deal…………………………….
The Government hopes an overhaul of planning rules could allow SMRs to be approved in a variety of locations, especially brownfield sites, away from areas with population densities of more than 5,000 people per square kilometre. However, there is still plenty of opportunity for applications to be denied based on natural beauty, ecology, cultural heritage, size, or flood risk. To combat NIMBYism, we would need to stuff a few mouths with gold.
Britain’s nuclear ambitions are also hampered by our current reliance on EDF. From leading the world in nuclear technology in the 1950s, our long lag since last constructing a plant has seen a loss of know-how, leaving us reliant on EDF for larger plants. Not only has this left us having signed an expensive deal for Hinkley, but it has entrusted our energy security to a company with a record of costly delays.
This is of a piece with our long tradition of nuclear short-sightedness. As Peter Franklin has pointed out, Johnson and Sunak follow Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, and Tony Blair in making grand pronouncements of a fleet of new British nuclear reactors. Little has good came of any of them. Amidst some substantial competition, we can count Hinkley as one of Blair’s most ignominious legacies.
We can expect Coutinho’s proposals to end up on a similar scrapheap. Labour says they are keen on more nuclear. But they will face the same problems of regulation, construction costs, and political volatility. It might take only another Fukushima for the public to go all German on our nuclear future…..
Military interests are pushing new nuclear power – and the UK government has finally admitted it
……………… the latest announcement, Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050, - in this supposedly “civil” strategy – are multiple statements about addressing “civil and military nuclear ambitions” together to “identify opportunities to align the two across government”.
French president Emmanuel Macron summarises: “without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear”.
Andy Stirling Professor of Science & Technology Policy in the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Philip JohnstoneResearch Fellow, SPRU, University of Sussex, January 19, 2024 https://theconversation.com/military-interests-are-pushing-new-nuclear-power-and-the-uk-government-has-finally-admitted-it-216118
The UK government has announced the “biggest expansion of the [nuclear] sector in 70 years”. This follows years of extraordinarily expensive support.
Why is this? Official assessments acknowledge nuclear performs poorly compared to alternatives. With renewables and storage significantly cheaper, climate goals are achieved faster, more affordably and reliably by diverse other means. The only new power station under construction is still not finished, running ten years late and many times over budget.
So again: why does this ailing technology enjoy such intense and persistent generosity?
…………………………………………………………………………….. A document published with the latest announcement, Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050, is also more about affirming official support than substantively justifying it. More significant – in this supposedly “civil” strategy – are multiple statements about addressing “civil and military nuclear ambitions” together to “identify opportunities to align the two across government”.
These pressures are acknowledged by other states with nuclear weapons, but were until now treated like a secret in the UK: civil nuclear energy maintains the skills and supply chains needed for military nuclear programmes.
The military has consistently called for civil nuclear
Official UK energy policy documents fail substantively to justify nuclear power, but on the military side the picture is clear.
For instance, in 2006 then prime minister Tony Blair performed a U-turn to ignore his own white paper and pledge nuclear power would be “back with a vengeance”. Widely criticised for resting on a “secret” process, this followed a major three volume study by the military-linked RAND Corporation for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) effectively warning that the UK “industrial base” for design, manufacture and maintenance of nuclear submarines would become unaffordable if the country phased out civil nuclear power.
A 2007 report by an executive from submarine-makers BAE Systems called for these military costs to be “masked” behind civil programmes. A secret MoD report in 2014 (later released by freedom of information) showed starkly how declining nuclear power erodes military nuclear skills.
In repeated parliamentary hearings, academics, engineering organisations, research centres, industry bodies and trade unions urged continuing civil nuclear as a means to support military capabilities.
In 2017, submarine reactor manufacturer Rolls Royce even issued a dedicated report, marshalling the case for expensive “small modular reactors” to “relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability”.
The government itself has remained coy about acknowledging this pressure to “mask” military costs behind civilian programmes. Yet the logic is clear in repeated emphasis on the supposedly self-evident imperative to “keep the nuclear option open” – as if this were an end in itself, no matter what the cost. Energy ministers are occasionally more candid, with one calling civil-military distinctions “artifical” and quietly saying: “I want to include the MoD more in everything we do”……………………………………………………………………………………..
This is even more evident in actions than words. For instance hundreds of millions of pounds have been prioritised for a nuclear innovation programme and a nuclear sector deal which is “committed to increasing the opportunities for transferability between civil and defense industries”.
An open secret
Despite all this, military pressures for nuclear power are not widely recognised in the UK. On the few occasions when it receives media attention, the link has been officially denied.
Other nuclear-armed states are also striving to maintain expensive military infrastructures (especially around submarine reactors) just when the civilian industry is obsolescing. This is true in the US, France, Russia and China.
Other countries tend to be more open about it, with the interdependence acknowledged at presidential level in the US for instance. French president Emmanuel Macron summarises: “without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear”.
This is largely why nuclear-armed France is pressing the European Union to support nuclear power. This is why non-nuclear-armed Germany has phased out the nuclear technologies it once lead the world in. This is why other nuclear-armed states are so disproportionately fixated by nuclear power.
These military pressures help explain why the UK is in denial about poor nuclear performance, yet so supportive of general nuclear skills. Powerful military interests – with characteristic secrecy and active PR – are driving this persistence.
Neglect of this picture makes it all the more disturbing. Outside defence budgets, off the public books and away from due scrutiny, expensive support is being lavished on a joint civil-military nuclear industrial base largely to help fund military needs. These concealed subsidies make nuclear submarines look affordable, but electricity and climate action more costly.
The conclusions are not self-evident. Some might argue military rationales justify excessive nuclear costs. But history teaches that policies are more likely to go awry if reasons are concealed. In the UK – where nuclear realities have been strongly officially denied – the issues are not just about energy, or climate, but democracy.
The Conversation asked the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to comment but did not receive a reply before the publication deadline. https://theconversation.com/military-interests-are-pushing-new-nuclear-power-and-the-uk-government-has-finally-admitted-it-216118
Weatherwatch: UK push for civil atomic power highlights link with nuclear weapons
Government previously denied evidence countries with nuclear weapons favour atomic power over renewables
Paul Brown, Fri 19 Jan 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/jan/19/weatherwatch-uk-push-civil-atomic-power-highlights-link-nuclear-weapons
There is long running debate about whether nuclear power has a role in combatting the climate crisis. The UK government decided last week it was vital and is planning a vast expansion. Most environmental groups remain sceptical, preferring quicker and cheaper renewables.
Whatever the merits of the case there was, buried deep in the government’s nuclear roadmap, a complete somersault on the relationship between civil and military nuclear power. Back in the 1980s and 1990s when the Guardian carried reports from Sussex University’s Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), among others, showing there was a link between the two, the government continuously denied it.
SPRU persevered with its work and noted that despite the UK’s denials, across the world it has become more obvious that states with nuclear weapons remain keen on atomic power while those without them put renewables centre stage.
Last week the government’s arguments in favour of new civil nuclear power swept aside any lingering doubt its predecessors had been covering up the link. The roadmap policy document mentioned 14 times in different sections the need to continue to strengthen the existing cooperation and tie-ups between the civil and military industries to the benefit of both. The logic is to keep to a minimum the training and development costs for both the weapons and power sectors.
The Greenland ice cap is losing an average of 30m tonnes of ice an hour due to the climate crisis.
The Greenland ice cap is losing an average of 30m tonnes of ice an hour
due to the climate crisis, a study has revealed, which is 20% more than was
previously thought. Some scientists are concerned that this additional
source of freshwater pouring into the north Atlantic might mean a collapse
of the ocean currents called the Atlantic meridional overturning
circulation (Amoc) is closer to being triggered, with severe consequences
for humanity. Major ice loss from Greenland as a result of global heating
has been recorded for decades. The techniques employed to date, such as
measuring the height of the ice sheet or its weight via gravity data, are
good at determining the losses that end up in the ocean and drive up sea
level. However, they cannot account for the retreat of glaciers that
already lie mostly below sea level in the narrow fjords around the island.
In the study, satellite photos were analysed by scientists to determine the
end position of Greenland’s many glaciers every month from 1985 to 2022.
This showed large and widespread shortening and in total amounted to a
trillion tonnes of lost ice.
Guardian 17th Jan 2024
Why nuclear reactors are not the future of energy despite what UK Government would have you think.
– Dr Richard Dixon. The UK Government is trying to create the impression that it’s all go for nuclear. It isn’t.
The UK’s nuclear enthusiasts have been on another PR offensive, with
announcements of new reactors and possible life extensions to old reactors.
All of it denying the reality that nuclear is much too slow to build and
much too expensive to be part of our future energy strategy. Globally
nuclear is in terminal decline. In the last five years more renewable
electricity has been generated by just new schemes around the world than by
all the world’s nuclear reactors. And twice as much again is expected to
be constructed in the next five years, taking renewables output to five
times that of nuclear.
Of course the motivation for this burst of
co-ordinated PR is clear, the $20bn for Sizewell C hasn’t been raised so
the UK Government is desperately trying to give the impression that it’s
all go for nuclear in the UK. When it clearly isn’t.
Scotsman 17th Jan 2024
Chalk River, or low-level nuclear governance.
Monique Pauzé, The author is a Bloc Québécois MP (Repentigny) and Environment critic., January 18, 2024
A few days ago, after several “rounds of work and consultation” that began in 2016, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) ruled in favor of the Chalk River Near Surface Waste Management Facility (NSWMF) project. Opposition to this open-air radioactive dump is undeniable: a multitude of aboriginal communities, citizen groups, scientists and over a hundred cities and municipalities spread around the Ottawa River, including Ottawa, Montreal and Gatineau.
To contextualize the issues surrounding this project, and to grasp the extent to which the authorization given is highly reprehensible, if not absurd, I believe it is pertinent to address it in the light of a study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment, specifically on Canada’s governance of radioactive waste. Held in 2022 and concluding with a report submitted to federal elected officials, the study is absolutely relevant today.
To begin with, we remind you that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) made suggestions and recommendations to the CNSC in 2019, during the peer review conducted by the Integrated Regulatory Review Service mission. As a result, we had confirmation, despite the government’s expressed pride, that Canada was not beyond reproach in this area, and this justified the attention of federal elected officials.
Many decried it: the essential principle of keeping radioactive waste away from sources of drinking water is not respected, and in many respects the project is at odds with the recommendations and guidelines of the IAEA, as well as with the five principles agreed and adopted by the leaders of 133 First Nations in Ontario.
There is an absence of consideration for the possible hazards associated with the project’s location and underground, hazards that attract less attention than the risks of contamination of watercourses, tributaries of the river, from which potentially millions of people draw their drinking water.
Legitimate opposition
In addition, Chalk River is located at the junction of geological fractures and in the western Quebec earthquake zone, a seismic belt that spans the Ottawa Valley, the Laurentians and parts of eastern Ontario. The volume of various radioactive wastes that will be buried in the open pit is substantial. Witnesses and experts have raised the issue of the lack of clarity in identifying the substances that will be introduced into the mound.
Opposition to the project is absolutely legitimate.
Several witnesses to this study accurately addressed the physical characteristics of Canadian radioactive waste, highlighting the redefinition of what constitutes intermediate-level radioactive waste, hidden in a CNSC “proof regulation” adopted in June 2020. William Turner, retired from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and a resident of Deep River, provided the committee with a detailed fact sheet on this issue.
Gilles Provost, a science journalist and witness to the study, wrote in Le Devoir on June 13 of the same year: “[…] we come up against a scientific absurdity: in physics, the activity of a radioactive product is its decay rate. The faster it decays, the higher its activity. This means that a radioactive product with [higher] activity according to physics would now be low-level waste according to the new definition decreed by the CNSC!”
This new definition has concrete effects, since the Chalk River SRWMF is designed to receive only low-level waste. The result? Waste considered to be medium-level by physical science will end up in the mound, since it is now considered to be low-level.
For the Aboriginal communities of Kebaowek and Kitigan Zibi, the process chosen by the CNSC constitutes a failure in its duty to consult properly.
In addition to the disturbing comments made or sent by their representatives during the parliamentary committee study in 2022 about the “coercive” nature of the consultative approach, the aboriginal communities are rightly relying on Article 29.2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that no decision on nuclear waste storage, small modular reactors, transport or decommissioning can be taken without free, prior and informed consent.
“[…] We could explain it to you, but you wouldn’t understand it anyway. We’ll give you all the information and you won’t understand it.” This excerpt from the testimony of Reg Niganobe, Chief of the Grand Council of the Anishinabe Nation and a witness to the 2022 study, is shocking: when a representative of the sector expresses himself in this way, I think the climate they want to create is incredibly unhealthy and contemptuous. Non-native groups have also been subjected to this type of “approach” in similar processes. Their submissions to the committee study attest to this.
If there is indeed a political will to consider the communities most directly affected by these issues, then they must be given the consideration they deserve.
Reconciliation? Participatory consultations? Transparent processes and compliance with IAEA standards? The CNSC reports to Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, and the mobilization against Chalk River will continue. The federal government had better change its mind… It has the authority to do so.
Roadmap to warfare: new policy exposes links with UK military nuclear projects
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities are keen to assist University of Sussex academics in exposing the links to the military that were revealed in the recent UK Government’s launch of a ‘Roadmap’ for the civil nuclear sector (11 January 2024).[1]
In the public interest, Andy Stirling, Professor of Science and Technology Policy, and Research Fellow Dr Phil Johnstone, both at the University of Sussex, have done remarkable work over many years highlighting the lack of transparency and the extent of cross-subsidy between the civil and military nuclear sectors, despite facing official hostility, obfuscation, or denial.
NFLA 18th Jan 2024
US urges discussions with China on practical nuclear risk reduction steps
Reuters, January 19, 2024
WASHINGTON, Jan 18 (Reuters) – The United States does not expect formal nuclear arms-control negotiations with China anytime soon, but does want to see a start of discussions on practical risk-reduction measures, a senior White House official said on Thursday.
Pranay Vaddi, the senior White House official for arms control and non proliferation, told a Washington think tank it had been important to have initial arms-control talks in November with China, but stressed the need for them to involve key Chinese decision makers or influencers on the country’s nuclear posture………………………..
The U.S. and China held their first talks on nuclear arms control in nearly five years on Nov. 6, amid growing U.S. concerns about China’s nuclear build up, but the meeting produced no specific results…………………………………………..
The U.S. and China held two days of military talks in Washington last week, their latest engagement since agreeing to resume military-to-military ties.
In its annual report on the Chinese military in October, the Pentagon said China has more than 500 operational nuclear warheads and will probably have over 1,000 warheads by 2030.
The U.S. has a stockpile of about 3,700 nuclear warheads, of which roughly 1,419 strategic nuclear warheads were deployed.
Reporting by David Brunnstrom; Editing by Sandra Maler, https://www.reuters.com/world/us-urges-discussions-with-china-practical-nuclear-risk-reduction-steps-2024-01-18/
Hinkley C site fire safety fears trigger enforcement notices
By Phil Hill, @GazettePHill, https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/24055739.hinkley-c-site-fire-safety-fears-trigger-enforcement-notices/ 17 Jan 24
Pre-planned inspections in November at the Unit 1 HR Building on the site led to ONR identifying the breaches and issuing the notices.
These have been served on licensee NNB Generation Company (HPC) Ltd, contractors Bouygues Travaux Publics SAS and Laing O’Rourke Construction Limited, who are the joint venture partners in BYLOR JV, and REEL UK.
The enforcement notices require improvements to be made to address the shortfalls and prevent re-occurrence.
There were no consequences to employees, the public or the environment as a result of the shortfalls.
However, ONR identified the potential for harm and risk of serious injury, which required regulatory action.
Shane Turner, superintending inspector and head of safety regulation at Hinkley Point C, said: “The enforcement notices require these four organisations to make improvements in fire safety arrangements at the Hinkley Point C site.
We will engage with each of them during the period of the enforcement notice to ensure positive progress is made.”
The notices require necessary improvements are made by March 31.
The enforcement action relates to contraventions under the requirements of Article 22 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
1
Shining a light on the UK’s nuclear deterrent
changes in the government’s policy on nuclear power in recent years would effectively allow Britain’s military nuclear industry to be supported by payments from electricity consumers.
“The issue now is that UK citizens are unwittingly subsidising military nuclear activity through energy bills to the tune of many tens of billions of pounds,”
Professor Andy Stirling and Dr Phil Johnstone have highlighted a lack of transparency between governments’ nuclear power programmes and their military nuclear capabilities.
As nuclear power declines worldwide, it is striking how many countries that continue to expend costly support are either existing or aspiring nuclear weapons states.
So say Andy Stirling, Professor of Science and Technology Policy, and Research Fellow Dr Phil Johnstone, at the University of Sussex. Their research into the dependency of military nuclear capabilities on the support of civil nuclear programmes has been cited widely – not least in the UK.
From early working-paper findings to presenting evidence to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in the House of Commons, their research has raised important questions about accountability, transparency and the future role of the nuclear industry in a changing world.
It has also received major media attention, with stories in the Guardian, the BBC, Independent and New York Times, whilst their findings also culminated in questions being asked (and significant answers being obtained) in a UK Parliamentary Select Committee, many Parliamentary Questions posed in Westminster and a motion being passed through the Scottish Parliament.
But it hasn’t come without its frustrations. Since the academics first presented their findings to the House of Commons in 2017 – and then in numerous subsequent national and international press stories – the UK Government has not responded directly to the serious criticisms that arose concerning a lack of transparency and accountability. Invitations have been received to discuss these issues with official bodies, and the analysis has not been refuted, but it remains open what the Government itself will do.
Early findings
It’s been quite a journey from their initial research. In 2015, the academics published a working paper on German and UK nuclear power. It was here that the pair conducted an in-depth analysis to try to understand the different nuclear trajectories of the UK and Germany.
The findings of this research first pointed towards concealed UK motives for persisting with nuclear at a time when commentators and experts, virtually across the board, were suggesting the opposite: that it was in irreversible decline.
What was new about the Sussex analysis was that it looked beyond nuclear weapons to the hidden dependencies of the submarine industry on civil nuclear programmes.
“When we started out, the idea of civil programmes supporting military nuclear programmes, was met with significant scepticism.” says Stirling.
“Since then, through evidence submissions and continued output, there has been a gradual acceptance by some that the need to sustain key capabilities and skills in order to construct and maintain nuclear submarines is a significant factor driving the UK’s intense enthusiasm for new nuclear.”
A block in public openness
Things were about to speed up. In 2016, a detailed SPRU working paper asked why UK policy had been so intensely committed to nuclear power, with the findings clearly pointing to military links as a means for continuation.
As a result, questions were now being asked of the UK Government, with transparency – or the lack thereof – at the top of the agenda.
“When we started out, the idea of civil programmes supporting military nuclear programmes, was met with significant scepticism.” says Stirling.
“Since then, through evidence submissions and continued output, there has been a gradual acceptance by some that the need to sustain key capabilities and skills in order to construct and maintain nuclear submarines is a significant factor driving the UK’s intense enthusiasm for new nuclear.”
A block in public openness
Things were about to speed up. In 2016, a detailed SPRU working paper asked why UK policy had been so intensely committed to nuclear power, with the findings clearly pointing to military links as a means for continuation.
As a result, questions were now being asked of the UK Government, with transparency – or the lack thereof – at the top of the agenda.
In 2017, the findings were first presented before the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons. The evidence found that a white paper into the UK’s energy policy was now “extraordinarily overdue”.
“It was very clear that the usual public policy processes were falling short,” says Stirling. “In this sense, it is not just our own analysis, but a matter of public record, that due consultation and analysis have not so much been “disregarded” as not performed at all.
“So, at the core of this issue is the fact that the intensity of official commitments to nuclear power by successive UK governments is largely due to factors that remain effectively undeclared.”
Hinkley Point C
Undoubtedly one of the most significant developments in recent times in relation to the UK’s nuclear strategy has been the go-ahead and development of Hinkley Point C, a large nuclear power station under construction in Somerset.
Since its inception, the project, which is being built by the French electricity company EDF, has been criticised on a number of grounds – not least its huge and escalating cost.
But it is the justification to build any new nuclear power station, as highlighted by this research, that raises legitimate questions about the role the UK government has played in this process: of willfully disregarding open, thorough consultation and analysis in order to carry on regardless with nuclear energy, without providing a legitimate reason why.
In evidence submitted to the PAC, the research concluded that the costs of the Trident programme could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy, from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”.
In their evidence, the academics wrote that the £19.6bn Hinkley Point project would “maintain a large-scale national base of nuclear-specific skills” without which there is concern “that the costs of UK nuclear submarine capabilities could be insupportable”.
A hidden subsidy
This evidence suggested that changes in the government’s policy on nuclear power in recent years would effectively allow Britain’s military nuclear industry to be supported by payments from electricity consumers.
“The issue now is that UK citizens are unwittingly subsidising military nuclear activity through energy bills to the tune of many tens of billions of pounds,” points out Johnstone.
“However, growing ever more significant is the failure of the existing policy apparatus to engage with the criticisms in this regard. This highlights that one of the main issues here concerns the quality of UK policy processes and the health of UK democracy itself.”
As time goes on in this way, the underlying impact of this work expands beyond the immediate story. In part, say the researchers, it lies in the failure of the UK government to be accountable for the decisions it has made in relation to the future of the UK’s energy policy. It has become a transparency issue, one in which the effects aren’t just felt on a state level but amongst its citizens – for many years to come.
What now?
In a world where misinformation is rife, it wasn’t long until claims were made that the research amounted to a ‘conspiracy theory’– particularly with findings that have had such far-reaching consequences. But this is something that Stirling and Johnstone have taken in their stride.
“The few private and public accusations that our analysis is a conspiracy theory have now all largely abated,” says Stirling.
“Several academics, policy analysts and journalists, who used these terms right at the outset, have now all gone out of their way explicitly to tell us that they believe us to be correct.
“In one case, a nuclear advocacy organization, taking the trouble to criticise us this way in an early blog post, has since shifted its position to openly advocate precisely the links they previously dismissed as a conspiracy theory.”
All of this points to research that is still evoking a reaction, still engaging stakeholders across the community, and is reaching into the heart of the democratic process. It also indicates that the effects of the research haven’t yet reached their climax.
A growing tension
“The reaction so far in the UK and international press, the wider energy policy and academic communities suggests that our work is making a firm mark in a field where the stakes are extremely high,” says Johnstone.
“Although the UK Government has itself thus far tried to side-line the issue, it has become strongly acknowledged more widely – even to the point of becoming orthodoxy in many quarters. The lack of official engagement is growing ever more telling.”
Yet uptake of the analysis by many prominent bodies and individuals in this field leaves no doubt that public discussions around nuclear power in the UK and more widely have been strongly influenced by this research.
As Stirling points out: “A backdrop of continued silence on the part of government, as trends continue to unfold and evidence and commentary continues to accumulate, suggests eventual acknowledgement is growing more likely. This in turn suggests that the largest impacts have yet to emerge.”
1 This Month
23-25 October – on Zoom – World BEYOND War’s annual global conferenc
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (180)
- 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
