nuclear-news

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

More nuclear reactors? Denying the risks, IAEA’s Grossi promotes unrealistic nuclear power plans

Beyond Nuclear, By M.V. Ramana and Jixiang Wang, 22 Sept 24

Rafael Grossi, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director General, has been busy over the last few years. The media has often reported on his efforts to highlight “the risk of a major nuclear accident” at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. Grossi has also met with Russian President Vladimir Putin twice to discuss the situation at Zaporizhzhia, arguing that a “severe nuclear accident…would recognize no borders” and “we must do everything possible to prevent” such an accident.

But Grossi has also simultaneously been increasing the risk of accidents, albeit inadvertently, by calling for building more nuclear reactors. This advocacy takes many forms. He has written op-eds in prominent outlets like Foreign Affairs. He has been trying to canvas countries to start nuclear power programs. For example, in March 2024. he went to Baghdad and committed to working with Iraq to help build a nuclear reactor “for peaceful purposes”. And as a way to deal with the unaffordable costs of nuclear reactors, he has pushed the World Bank and Asian Development Bank to provide funding for building nuclear plants.

None of this make sense. When viewed as investment advice to banks, Grossi’s promotion of nuclear power does not meet the laugh threshold. According to Grossi, the banks’ lack of funding for nuclear energy is “out of date, out of step with what is happening”. But it is Grossi’s advocacy that is out of step with happening to nuclear energy in the real world.

When nuclear energy is evaluated through how much it contributes to the world’s electricity production, the technology has been declining continuously for over 25 years, from 17.5 percent in 1996 down to 9.2 percent in 2022. For reasons discussed later, this trend will likely continue. In other words, the importance of nuclear energy is diminishing. Investing more money into a technology that some scholars argue is “destined for decline” makes little sense.

When analyzing Grossi’s advice to these development banks, one should remember what these institutions are supposed to do. The World Bank’s mission is “to end extreme poverty and boost prosperity on a livable planet”. And the Asian Development Bank has a similar mission, with a regional focus on Asia and the Pacific. The World Bank’s mission, in particular, mentions the multiple, intertwined crises we are confronting and emphasizes both the need for “affordable energy” and how quickly these crises should be addressed, stating “time is of the essence”. Nuclear energy fails on both counts.

Expensive and Slow

Electricity from nuclear reactors is costly and does not provide affordable energy, especially when compared to other low-carbon, renewable sources of energy. During the same period mentioned earlier, the share of all electricity generated by modern renewables has risen from just over 1 percent of in 1996 to 15.9 percent in 2023. Today, it is utility-scale solar photovoltaic power that provides the least costly option for generating electricity plants in many countries. This is why, in 2020, the International Energy Agency dubbed solar “the new king of the world’s electricity markets”. Money spent on nuclear reactors by banks would only divert funds away from investing in renewables and associated technologies and infrastructures.

Nuclear reactors have also almost never been on time. An astonishing 89 percent of all reactors that were connected to the grid between 2020 and 2022 were delayed………………………………..

That is not all. Around the world, 92 nuclear projects have been cancelled or suspended, usually after hundreds of millions, if not billions, have been spent. In the United States, the latest such cancellation was a project involving a small modular reactor from NuScale that the company advertised as “smaller, safer, and cheaper”

Necessary Conditions for Nuclear Power

It is not as though development banks have not considered nuclear energy. Back in 1959, the World Bank did invest in a nuclear project in Italy, based on a set of conditions, most importantly the unavailability of other cost-competitive alternatives. That project was not a success. More important for the present discussion is that with the reduced cost and increasing availability of solar and wind power, nuclear power no longer meets these conditions to be cost-effective.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), too, undertook an analysis of various technologies and published an Energy Policy paper in 2009 that highlighted a number of barriers confronting nuclear power development, including “public concerns related to nuclear proliferation, waste management, safety issues, high investment costs, long lead times, and commercial acceptability of new technologies”. Thanks to these concerns, the paper declared that “ADB will maintain its current policy of non-involvement in the financing of nuclear power generation”. None of these barriers have disappeared.

………………………………………Fukushima served as a reminder that the nature of nuclear technology ensures “the inevitability of accidents”.

The Unlearned Lessons of Zaporizhzhia

A different route to a severe nuclear accident is on display at the Zaporizhzhia power plant—and Grossi has been eloquent about how such an accident will “have ripples and reverberations all over the world”. But instead of considering Zaporizhzhia as a wake-up call to reflect on whether the world should continue to build more nuclear power plants, Grossi has taken recourse to advocating for five principles of nuclear safety and security. Unfortunately for him these rules are unlikely to be widely accepted—as evidenced by the many attacks on the Zaporizhzhia plant.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Grossi’s silence about this risk should be troubling at the best of times. But it is particularly inexcusable when he is, in parallel, emphasizing the risks of suffer a major accident at the Zaporizhzhia power plant. When he went to Iraq recently, he actively downplayed the legitimate concerns in that country thanks to its nuclear reactors being bombed by Israel and the United States. Grossi’s prescription is to simply call for “turning the page on this complex past”. Can he genuinely and credibly assure Iraq that such an attack will not happen again?

The deeper problem is a conflict of interest. As the head of the International Atomic Energy, Rafael Grossi, like his predecessors, tasked with two separate objectives: “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world” and to “ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose”. The case for promoting nuclear energy was never very strong and has completely collapsed in recent years. It is past time to simply abandon the first objective and focus on the second.  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/09/22/more-nuclear-reactors/

September 23, 2024 Posted by | spinbuster | Leave a comment

Nuclear horror still haunts us Threads tapped into our fear of apocalypse

Unherd 23rd Sept 2024 Paul Heron, September 23, 2024

On 13 September, Vladimir Putin issued a sobering threat. If Ukraine used Nato-supplied missiles against targets deep inside Russia, the president warned, the alliance would be  “directly participating in the conflict” — and the US and its allies would be “fighting with Russia”. Putin’s comments echoed another threat, two years ago, when he drew several ”red lines” for Nato, adding that he was prepared to use nuclear weapons if they were crossed.

Here, then, we have the one of the least welcome developments of the 2020s: the return, after decades of absence, of the terrible spectre of nuclear war. And for those old enough to remember what it was like the first time round — or for their children who’ve watched the clips on YouTube — surely the most disturbing example of what atomic catastrophe might actually look like was first broadcast 40 years ago today. Shown by BBC Two on 23 September 1984, Threads is more horrifying and urgent than ever.

The scenario imagined in Threads is troublingly familiar. After an American-backed coup in a strategically important nation — in this case Iran — the Soviets invade. The US then moves to deploy troops. In unemployment-hit Sheffield, meanwhile, ordinary life goes on. A young couple prepares to become parents. The husband’s middle-aged father has been laid off; his redundancy money will go toward the renovation of the family’s home. Elsewhere, the local council is quietly making preparations in the event of war. Sheffield’s size, and the proximity of RAF Finningley, make the South Yorkshire town a prime target.

It is, by common consent, one of the darkest films ever made. There’s a disturbing sense of logical inevitability about the way the world moves step-by-step toward the precipice. The attack, when it comes, is unflinching, unsentimental and horrifyingly believable.

Writer Barry Hines — best-known for his novel A Kestrel for a Knave  — sketches his native milieu with deft assurance. Hines, who died in 2016, was from the mining village of Hoyland, just outside Sheffield. In his career, he often focused on Northern England’s working class, and Threads is no different. As the Iran crisis escalates, for instance, we see protesters taking to the streets in a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament march (most of the film’s actors were in fact CND members). Days later, there’s a moment of black humour when a speaker at a much more fraught protest calls for a general strike, as if that could have any effect whatsoever. It’s tempting to read the scene as a subtle comment on the eclipse of traditional Left politics in the age of Thatcherism.

Indeed, the whole film takes on added depth when viewed within that context: I think the film’s darkness has its roots not simply in the terrifying subject matter, but also in the broader political context of the Eighties. ………………………………………………………………………………..

Yet more than its narrator, it’s surely the denouement of Threads that makes it so enduring. When, after ratcheting up the tension, we’re finally shown the actual bombing, it is genuinely frightening. There are no heroics, only suffering and death, either instantaneous or slow. Later, the nuclear exchange having run its course, a stark computer readout informs us that 3,000 megatons have been exploded globally, with 210 falling on Britain. Needless to say, the film’s second half isn’t easy to watch. Threads explores severals aspects of desperate postwar life: the hazards of radiation; the search for loved ones in the ruins; shortages of food and water; the collapse of law and order; the shooting of looters; the impossibility of treating the multitudes of sick and injured; the coming of nuclear winter. Just as powerful is the film’s final minutes, which shows the world years after the bombs have fallen. Almost everyone seems to be under eighteen, the clear implication being that no one lives very long anymore. Technology is at near-medieval levels.

This wretched narrative is hammered home by an utter lack of sentimentality. Threads has no heroes and major characters die abruptly. What viewers get instead are wordless montages, and blunt facts delivered in cyan text on a black screen. As in Brecht’s theatre, interpreting what is put before us in our usual clichéd, complacent way is made impossible…………………………………………

Docudramas as accomplished as Threads, so full of dark passion and righteous anger, are rare today. The gravity and urgency of the political situation in the mid-Eighties inspired a superb example of British cinematic modernism. The defenders of social democracy knew their world was disappearing, but faced an infinitely worse possibility: the destruction of the world, tout court. It’s clear this threat has in some way returned — thanks to Putin’s threats, but also events in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific — though I have my doubts whether our governing or creative classes fully grasp what that means.

Today there is a lack of vision. Perhaps the Cold War is distant enough that its lessons are being forgotten. Watch Threads and you’ll recall them soon enough.  https://unherd.com/2024/09/nuclear-horror-still-haunt-us/

September 23, 2024 Posted by | media | Leave a comment

Israel Unleashes Hell On South Lebanon With Giant Mystery Bomb As War Escalates

Zero Hedge, by Tyler Durden,  Sep 22, 2024

Massive escalation along the southern Lebanese border is very clear at this point, as Israeli jets have pounded Hezbollah positions through much of Saturday. 

Al Jazeera correspondents have confirmed that “Israel’s military launched 400 attacks on Lebanon on Saturday and Hezbollah fired rockets at the Ramat David base near the city of Haifa, in their largest exchange of fire since the war on Gaza began.”

Another indicator of the escalation is that Israel is apparently beginning use much bigger bombs compared to much of the past nearly year of internecine fighting. The below widely circulating footage shows a large flash and skyscraper-size fireball, resulting in some viewers speculating it was likely a heavy bunker-buster bomb, or possibly even a tactical nuke of some sort. Whatever it was, there’s never been anything like it used on Lebanon (that we know about).

……………. Since Thursday and the deadly chaos of the two-day pager explosion attack, southern Lebanon has seen the most intense exchange of fire between Hezbollah and Israel since the conflict began after Oct.7.

On Saturday the expanded pace of fire has continued, with Hezbollah having launched at least 90 rockets on northern Israel, and the IDF saying it has mounted at least 80 raids on weapons installations belonging to Hezbollah…………………………………..

The death toll from Friday’s Israeli airstrike which killed Hezbollah special forces commander Ibrahim Aqil has risen to 37, after a day-long rescue operation and workers picking through rubble of a residential building, according to the country’s Health Ministry. Reports say that a meeting of Hezbollah leaders was taking place in either a garage, or a tunnel underneath the building in south Beirut.

“According to source, the meeting was being held in a tunnel under a residential building, a location that was being used for the first time, which has raised Hezbollah’s concerns about the extent Israel has infiltrated its ranks,” Middle East Eye reports. Hezbollah has since confirmed that 16 of its members were killed in the attack.

Lebanon’s government says three children and seven women were among the victims. Over 60 others were injured. The White House has still called the Israeli strike “a good outcome”.

White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan described Aqil as having “American blood on his hands and has a rewards for justice price on his head.”

He has long been sought by the US for his alleged role in the 1983 bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut, and well as kidnapping of Westerners in the the later 1980s. He had a $7 million bounty on his head issued by the Justice Department.

“He is somebody who the United States promised long ago we would do everything we could to see brought to justice,” Sullivan said. “You know, 1983 seems like a long time ago,” he added. “But for a lot of families and a lot of people, they’re still living with it every day.”

Some Middle East pundits and commentators expressed “shock” at the celebratory statements by the Biden administration, given the Israeli operation resulted in a high civilian death toll.  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/idf-says-180-targets-eliminated-southern-lebanon-us-lauds-good-outcome-beirut-strike

September 23, 2024 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear plant’s decommissioning could take 95 years

Daniel Mumby, Local Democracy Reporting Service, 19 Sept 24, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8699v4dvexo

Residents are being asked for their views on how a former nuclear power station should be safely decommissioned.

The Hinkley Point B facility, which lies on the Somerset coast north of Stogursey, ceased operations in August 2022, after cracks developed in the plant’s graphite cores, creating potential safety concerns.

EDF Energy, which owns the facility, has applied to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) for formal permission to decommission the site, which could take about 95 years.

Somerset residents now have three months to voice their views.

Under the proposals, Hinkley Point B, which opened in 1976, could be decommissioned in three phases.

The first phase, which will last until 2038, includes the dismantling of all buildings and plant materials except for the site’s safestore structure. This facility will be used to store and manage the residential nuclear waste from the power station.

The second phase will see “a period of relative inactivity” of up to 70 years from 2039, to allow for the radioactive materials within the safestore to safely decay, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

While physical activity within the site will be minimal during this phase, the former power station will remain under close surveillance with “periodic maintenance interventions” to prevent any risk to health or national security.

The third and final phase will see the former reactor and debris vaults being dismantled and removed and any final landscaping work being completed – with EDF estimating that this will be finished by 2118.

The consultation is running until 9 December, with the ONR expected to publish its formal response in early 2025.

Hinkley Point C

EDF is currently building Hinkley Point C, which has a target completion date of June 2027.

Costing about £46bn, it is expected to generate enough electricity to supply some six million homes for the next 60 years.

September 23, 2024 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Is the new UK government prepared to rise to the challenge of investing in energy efficiency measures and reducing the country’s energy use?

Internationally, more recent UN  assessments are placing much greater emphasis on changing demand for fuel, broadly supporting the CREDS’ analysis of the scale of the potential. The International Energy Agency consistently refers to energy efficiency as ‘the first fuel’, and the European Commission actively promotes ‘Energy Efficiency First’.

Is the new government prepared to rise to the challenge of investing in energy efficiency measures and reducing the country’s energy use? asks Andrew Warren.

The UK has a new government. It arrives determined to deliver the potential that greater investment in energy efficiency offers, and these are acknowledged to be ‘wins all round’ in economic, social and environmental terms. Every plausible scenario for delivering climate targets depends critically on delivering these improvements.

The key question remains – how best to deliver this potential? Fortunately, for the past six years, there has been a major project, funded by UK Research & Innovation, that has been exploring precisely these answers.

The Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS) has been run by an Oxford University professor, Nick Eyre – a man with a very practical background in the subject. Prior to becoming an academic, he worked at a senior level  for the Energy Saving Trust. An active County Councillor, he was a key figure seconded to the Cabinet Office, helping create the first energy White Paper for 30 years, launched by Tony Blair in 2003, which elucidated the entire case for an energy efficiency/renewables-based future.

And way back in 1989, he helped prepare the energy efficiency case for Margaret Thatcher’s government on the ‘greenhouse effect’. This included the identification of potential emission reductions of 477 Mt CO₂ within 30 years. These were deemed grossly over ambitious by the energy establishment at the time, but they have nonetheless been achieved. Practically half these savings have come from improvements in energy efficiency, which have been spread across the three major categories of energy use: electricity (32%, 123 Mt CO₂) heating (34%, 68 Mt CO₂) and transport (17%, 33 Mt CO₂).

Energy demand matters

A full analysis of what has actually been achieved to date can be found on the Centre’s website (www.creds.ac.uk/creds-research-findings/). In addition, there are approaching 500 other publications drawn from academics based  throughout the UK involved in this initiative, the vast majority of these fully peer-reviewed. On the website, these have been grouped under nine different ‘themes’. The overall findings of the six-year project can be found in 15 one-page topic summaries, each of which provides links to the underlying evidence base.

The CREDS consortium has a wide range of perspectives. For a collection of academics this is inevitable, and healthy. But there are some insights that are commonly shared.

The first is that energy demand management matters. Use of energy is fundamental to a modern society, but it is currently the main cause of greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis confirms it has to be reduced, made more flexible and switched to decarbonised fuels. Reducing the amount of energy that needs to be decarbonised reduces the cost of the transition.

The work reasserts the importance of energy efficiency improvements, and importantly identifies the huge boost to its potential offered by electrification. But also established is that some of the broader benefits of demand reduction (e.g. for health, energy security and green employment) also require more fundamental change in the systems that drive energy use, in particular shifts to a circular economy.

Reducing consumption

Going forward, CREDS’ analyses show clearly that current UK energy consumption can be halved by 2050 – and, critically, the policy measures that need to be introduced, and enforced, to achieve this. The research has consistently found that fairness matters – not just because it is normatively important, but also because perceptions of fairness, or otherwise, affect public support for change.

All this means that managing demand for energy is central to the shift to sustainable energy within a zero emissions concept. Conceptualising changing energy demand purely in terms of ‘individual responsibility’, ‘greener choices’ or ‘behaviour change’ simply misses the point.

Just like changing energy supply, changing demand requires changes in infrastructure, technology and business models. 

For many people, this may well be CREDS’ most surprising insight. It certainly also means that existing institutions and policies will not be adequate. Previous UK governments have failed to address this key conclusion. All significant change takes time and effort. Particularly in democracies, a ‘long march through the institutions’ is needed. And there are positive signs that these insights are beginning to have traction.

Efficiency first

Internationally, more recent UN  assessments are placing much greater emphasis on changing demand for fuel, broadly supporting the CREDS’ analysis of the scale of the potential. The International Energy Agency consistently refers to energy efficiency as ‘the first fuel’, and the European Commission actively promotes ‘Energy Efficiency First’.

In the UK, some similar shifts can be seen in reports from the Climate Change Committee, the National Infrastructure Commission and the Government Office of Science. And there are positive signs in the Scottish and Welsh governments and many local authorities, as well as forward-thinking businesses and civil society organisations.

For research funders, the CREDS initiative has a clear message – inter-disciplinary approaches are still needed. They can be hard work, but the challenges of changing demand require multiple perspectives. As importantly, ‘changing energy demand’ is not a single topic; the challenges are diverse and require in-depth knowledge of specific sectors, technologies and energy services. Expertise matters and should be supported.

One of the biggest long term benefit of CREDS will be from the skills and commitment of the people its  existence has brought together. They are part of the generation that will help government map the pathways through to complete decarbonisation.

As his professorship becomes ‘emeritus’, wise leaders in the new UK administration should be expressing considerable gratitude to Nick Eyre, for the very remarkable groundwork his foresight in creating the insightful CREDS initiative has provided for them.

September 23, 2024 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Western, Russian nuclear industries still intertwined, report says

By Reuters, September 19, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/western-russian-nuclear-industries-still-intertwined-report-says-2024-09-19/

VIENNA, – The Russian and Western nuclear industries remain dependent on each other, a situation that has shielded Russia from European sanctions, an industry report said on Thursday.

Cutting the West’s dependence would likely drive up costs, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report said.

Since Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, some of the five European Union countries with Russia-designed VVER reactors, which use Russian fuel, have sought alternative fuel sources, particularly U.S. company Westinghouse Electric.

Several of those countries, however, stockpiled Russian fuel last year, driving up imports.

Some Western companies rely heavily on Russian state company Rosatom’s construction of new reactors abroad to sell their parts, the report said.

“Interdependence between Russia and its Western partners remains significant,” the report said.

“With Rosatom implementing all 13 nuclear-power reactor construction sites started outside China over the past five years, providers of parts, e.g. France’s Arabelle turbines, do not have any other foreign customer besides Rosatom,” it said, referring to a unit of French state power utility EDF.

September 23, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics international | Leave a comment

Global Solar Installations on Track for Another Record Year

Solar capacity around the world will be installed at a record pace in 2024,
as bargain panel prices help countries’ efforts to deploy cleaner energy.
Global additions are set to hit 593 gigawatts this year, a jump of about
29% from last year, London-based energy research firm Ember said in a new
report. The increase comes on top of a near doubling of new installations
in 2023, and largely matches a forecast from BloombergNEF.

Bloomberg 19th Sept 2024 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-18/global-solar-installations-on-track-for-another-record-year

September 23, 2024 Posted by | renewable | Leave a comment

Call for banks to back nuclear energy projects

The global nuclear industry
is asking major banks to fund nuclear projects to [?] meet net zero goals and
improve energy security. Nuclear energy is increasingly being discussed as
a key component in global efforts to improve energy security. At the
“Roadmaps to New Nuclear” conference in Paris, nuclear industry
associations from various countries, including the US, UK, Canada and
France, urged international financial institutions to support new nuclear
projects.

The call was directed at organisations such as the World Bank,
asking them to include nuclear energy in their funding portfolios to help
nations meet their low carbon energy goals. This push aims to expand
nuclear energy capacity alongside renewable energy by 2050,
Industry groups also highlighted the potential to decrease reliance on
Russian nuclear technology.

Energy Live News 20th Sept 2024

Call for banks to back nuclear energy projects

September 23, 2024 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste group spends £4,600 on logo to show it IS listening to Theddlethorpe views.

 A probe has revealed that a group connected to plans
for an underground nuclear waste dump in Theddlethorpe spent £4,600 on a
new logo to demonstrate it is listening to residents’ views. The logo, with
two speech bubbles, signifying a conversation, has been created for the
Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership, which has been set up to help
locals understand why a GDF (geological disposal facility) might be
suitable for the area.

The former gas terminal at Theddlethorpe has been
identified as one of several potential locations in England for the dumping
of nuclear waste by the government agency, Nuclear Waste Services (NWS). It
would be stored beneath up to 1,000 metres of solid rock until its
radioactivity naturally decays.

Lincolnshire World 20th Sept 2024
https://www.lincolnshireworld.com/news/people/nuclear-waste-group-spends-ps4600-on-logo-to-show-it-is-listening-to-theddlethorpe-views-4790584

September 23, 2024 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

With US $billions and diplomatic support, Ukraine and Israel are destroying themselves.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 22 Sept 24

Joe Biden began his presidency doing a great thing for peace. Three years ago he ended America’s illegal, immoral, criminal war in Afghanistan.

But Biden is no friend of peace. He’s spent the last three years instigating and funding proxy war in Ukraine to weaken Russia, and funding and enabling Israel’s genocidal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza.

Neither of these murderous wars could continue without America’s endless billions and fervent moral support in word and deed.

But both Ukraine and Israel have fallen for US support to head down the path to failed state status.

Ukraine is already there. A fifth of their land gone. Economy shattered. Military largely destroyed. Millions displaced internally or fled to o other countries. Dependent upon on massive, unrepayable loans from the US and NATO countries simply to function. Cancelled elections spell the end of Ukrainian democracy. It could hardly be worse.

This all could have been avoided had the US not demanded Ukraine join NATO to isolate Russia from the European political economy, and supported a coup toppling the Ukrainian president who sought economic relations with Russia. Nor would it have happened had Ukraine President Zelensky rebuffed Biden’s NATO membership overtures and provided regional autonomy to Donbas as promised under the 2015 Minsk II Accords.

While not the basket case Ukraine is, Israel appears hell bent to join it as a failed state. By exploiting the October 7 Hamas attack to initiate all out genocidal ethnic cleansing of Gaza, Israel is destroying itself as well. Outside of the Biden administration, it has lost worldwide support as a moral nation. It has greatly weakened Israel’s economy, overtaxed it military, irrevocably divided its populace, forced over 60,000 citizens to flee northern Israel, and embarked on a self destructive war it cannot win.

Make that 2 wars. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocidal campaign in Gaza has provoked blowback in northern Israel from both Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. Like Hamas in Gaza, neither of these two additional opponents can be defeated by Israel alone. Just like with Ukraine, endless billions from Biden will not turn the tide.

Both Zelensky in Ukraine and Netanyahu in Israel have one Hail Mary toss to fling….bring the US directly into the battle on their side. Zelensky has been promoting this explicitly since his losing war with Russia began 31 month ago. Netanyahu, is more discreet, simply taking provocative actions like bombing Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon and Syria, engaging in terrorism using explosive cellphones and pagers, all designed to ignite regional war involving Iran that the US would feel compelled to join.

So far President Biden has resisted direct US involvement in both senseless wars. But either could blow up in his face at any moment, triggering direct US involvement. Should that occur, we’ll see much worse than Ukraine and Israel self destructing. America and the rest of the world’s 193 countries might well join them.

September 23, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Israel’s Collapse Is Imminent Amid Escalation In Lebanon

 September 22, 2024, By Mnar Adley / MintPressNews,  https://www.mintpressnews.com/scott-ritter-lebanon-pager-attack-hezbollah-brics/288312/

It sometimes feels like the world is on the brink of war. Israel has just escalated the conflict in the Middle East with a massive attack on Lebanon, implanting bombs in hundreds of pagers and other electronic devices, killing many and injuring thousands.

Around the world, the action has been condemned as an act of terror.

Today’s guest, Scott Ritter, unequivocally denounced the move. “This is something that is unjustifiable under any circumstances. There is no element of the law of war that would allow this kind of indiscriminate attack,” he said. Ritter is a former United States Corps Intelligence Officer and UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq. He is an author and a geopolitical analyst, whose work you can find at ScottRitter.com. He has closely followed the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

The attack, he said, will have widespread implications, not least for Western corporations, who were caught unaware. “This is going to create a crisis of confidence among consumers that could end up costing Western companies billions of dollars,” he explained, adding:

Anybody with any shred of common sense will immediately throw away their Western-made electronic device and source one from a country such as China, where Israel is not going to be able to infiltrate and corrupt the integrity of the electronic device to achieve either intelligence collection goals or assassination [goals].”

While the Israeli military is vastly better armed and funded than Hamas, Ritter claimed that it was actually the Palestinian force that has come out on top after 12 months of fighting, stating:

“Hamas right now, in my opinion, is winning this conflict. They are winning it strategically. They are paying a horrible price for it. But on October 6, nobody was talking about the creation of a Palestinian state. Today, it is on the tip of the tongue of so many people around the world. Why? Because the world has seen the truth about Israel.”

Not only that, but Israel is eating itself from within. Its military is seriously depleted; its economy has been shattered by rocket attacks, and by 12 months of war economy; and its society is beginning to fragment.

The United States, too, has been damaged. It is increasingly isolated on the world stage, and its prestige is slipping. Fewer nations look to Washington for leadership and, instead, see organizations such as BRICS as the future.

Later this month, a BRICS summit will be held in Kazan, Russia, bringing its core member nations together with its new invitees. Palestine will be a key issue, and no doubt countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates will be put under pressure to stop covertly aiding Israel and come to a solution to end the war.

BRICS has already succeeded in helping to lessen tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and it is possible that the new bloc can act to bring about peace in a manner that many hoped the United Nations would be able to do.

Whatever happens, it is clear that October 7 fundamentally changed the situation for Israel and Palestine forever.

September 23, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics | Leave a comment

Germany’s dirty secret: Its leaking nuclear waste dump

Kiyo Dörrer, September 19, 2024

Germany has a dirty little secret. In the middle of the country, deep underground, a radioactive waste dump has been leaking for decades. And nobody really knows what do to with it.

Deutsche Welle 19th Sept 2024, https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-dirty-secret-its-leaking-nuclear-waste-dump/video-70237250

September 23, 2024 Posted by | wastes | Leave a comment

Global status report highlights parlous state of nuclear power sector

“the industry is essentially running to stand still.”

Jim Green, 20 Sept 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-status-report-highlights-parlous-state-of-nuclear-power-sector/

Two new reports have undermined the Dutton Coalition’s claims about nuclear power.

A report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) undermines claims that nuclear power would reduce power bills, and the latest edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report undermines claims that nuclear power is on a growth trajectory and Australia risks being left behind.

The IEEFA report’s key findings are as follows:

– Under the Coalition’s nuclear plans, electricity bills could rise by $665 per year on average across jurisdictions and scenarios, for households using a median amount of electricity.

– The bill impact would be more acute for larger households, given their higher electricity consumption. For example, for 4-person households the average annual bill increase across regions and nuclear scenarios would be $972 and for 5+ person households it would be $1,182.

– The cost of electricity generated from nuclear plants would likely be 1.5 to 3.8 times the current cost of electricity generation in eastern Australia.

– Overnight capital costs (excluding financing costs) of recent nuclear power station builds analysed by IEEFA have blown out by a factor of between 1.7 and 3.4, creating significant financial difficulties for the companies involved.

World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024 (WNISR-2024) was released yesterday. Since 1992, these reports have provided a wealth of factual information about the status and trajectory of nuclear power worldwide.

WNISR-2024 notes that as of 1 July 2024, a total of 408 nuclear power reactors were operating in 32 countries, 30 below the 2002 peak of 438 reactors.

At the end of 2023, nuclear capacity stood at 365 gigawatts (GW). As of mid-2024, operating capacity reached 367.3 GW, 0.2 GW more than the previous 2006 end-of-year record of 367.1 GW.

That’s something for the nuclear boosters to cheer about: record nuclear capacity. But some context is needed. Nuclear power has been stagnant for the past 30 years and a fleet of mostly young reactors is now a fleet of old reactors.

In 1990, the mean age of the global power reactor fleet was just 11.3 years. WNISR-2024 notes that the average age of the world’s operating reactor fleet has been increasing since 1984 and stands at 32 years as of mid-2024, up from 31.4 years in mid-2023.

As the rate of closure of ageing reactors increases, it will become increasingly difficult for the industry to maintain its 30-year pattern of stagnation by matching closures with start-ups, let alone achieving any growth.

Former World Nuclear Association executive Steve Kidd spoke to this problem in 2016, noting that “the industry is essentially running to stand still.”

In 2023, WNISR-2024 notes, there were five reactor start-ups (5 GW) and five permanent closures (6 GW) with a net decline of 1 GW in capacity. (This year has also been underwhelming: a net gain of 2 GW of nuclear capacity compared to several hundred GW of new renewable capacity.)

Nuclear’s share of global electricity generation declined from 9.2 percent to 9.1 percent in 2023, little more than half of its peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.

In the 20 years from 2004 to 2023, there were 102 startups and 104 reactor closures worldwide. Of these, 49 startups were in China with no closures. Outside China, there has been a net decline of 51 reactors over the same period, and net capacity declined by 26.4 GW.

As of mid-2024, 59 reactors were under construction worldwide, 10 fewer than in 2013. China had the most reactors under construction (27) but none abroad. Russia dominates the international market with 26 units under construction as of mid-2024, six of them in Russia and 20 in seven other countries.

WNISR-2024 states: “It remains uncertain to what extent these projects have been or will be impacted by sanctions imposed on Russia and other consequential geopolitical developments following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

Construction started on six reactors in 2023 — down from 10 in 2022 — including five in China.

Chinese and Russian government-controlled companies launched all 35 reactor constructions in the world from December 2019 to mid-2024. Besides Russia’s Rosatom, only France’s EDF is currently building nuclear power plants abroad (two reactors in the UK) as lead-contractor.

Potential nuclear ‘newcomer’ countries

Peter Dutton claims that “50 countries are exploring or investing in next-generation nuclear technology for the first time.” That’s nonsense. WNISR-2024 notes that the number of countries building reactors fell by three from mid-2023 to mid-2024.

Reactors are under construction in 13 countries, down from 16 countries the previous year as the UAE and the US completed their last construction projects and Brazil suspended its only reactor construction project. Only three countries — China, India, and Russia — are building reactors at more than one site.

Just three potential nuclear newcomer countries had reactors under construction as of mid-2024: Egypt, Bangladesh and Turkiye.

WNISR-2024 notes that of 18 African countries analysed, only four would have grid systems large enough to meet minimum capacity criteria to host a large nuclear reactor (based on the rule of thumb that the largest unit in a grid system should not exceed 10 percent of total system capacity).

Small modular reactors might find a niche — but they don’t exist.

Small modular reactors

WNISR-2024 states: “The gap between hype about Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and industrial reality continues to grow. The nuclear industry and multiple governments are doubling down on their investments into SMRs, both in monetary and political terms. So far, reality on the ground does not reflect those efforts.

“SMR projects continue to be delayed or canceled. Costs for nuclear projects in general and SMRs in particular are surging. The few available cost estimates for SMRs, especially when weighted by their electrical power generation capacities, show how expensive these are.”

Two developments over the past year have punctured the hype around SMRs. The first was NuScale’s decision to abandon its flagship project in Idaho after cost estimates rose to an absurd A$30,000 per kilowatt (A$14 billion for a 462 megawatt plant).

Then, French utility EDF announced that it had suspended the development of its Nuward SMR and reoriented the project “to a design based on proven technological building blocks.”

The two operating SMRs — a twin-reactor plant in China and a twin-reactor floating plant in Russia — weren’t built using serial factory construction methods so can’t be called SMRs. Nor are there plans to mass-produce these reactors types using serial factory construction methods, so the so-called SMRs in China and Russia can’t even be called prototype SMRs.

Dutton wants taxpayers to fund the construction of large reactors in the eastern states and SMRs in SA and WA. SA aims to reach 100 percent net renewable electricity generation as soon as 2027. Presumably Dutton wants to replace some of that renewable power generation with SMRs, for some unfathomable reason.

Nuclear vs renewables

Total investment in non-hydro renewable electricity capacity in 2023 was estimated by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) at $US623 billion, up 8 per cent compared to the previous year. According to a WNISR estimate, this represents 27 times the reported global investment decisions for the construction of nuclear power plants of about $US23 billion for 6.7GW.

BNEF estimated investments in stationary storage capacity at around US$36 billion in 2023, which, for the first time, exceeded investments into new nuclear. Globally, utility-scale storage additions jumped from just over 10 GW added in 2022 to more than 25 GW in 2023.

In 2023, annual additions of solar and wind power grew by 73 per cent and 51 per cent, respectively, resulting in nearly 460 GW of combined new capacity, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency.

The solar PV market saw China alone adding around 217 GW — a 150-percent increase over 2022-additions — and the rest of the world 129 GW for a total of 346 GW or about 1 GW per day.

The Global Wind Energy Council reported a record of 117 GW of new wind installations, a 50 per cent year-on-year increase, with China accounting for 65 percent of total added onshore capacity and 58 per cent of total added offshore capacity. These numbers compare with a net addition of 1 GW nuclear capacity in China and a global decline of 1 GW in 2023.

WNISR 2024 states: “In 2021, the combined output of solar and wind plants surpassed nuclear power generation for the first time. In 2023, wind and solar facilities generated 50 percent more electricity than nuclear plants.

“Wind power alone generated 2,300 terawatt-hours (TWh) and is getting close to nuclear’s 2,600 TWh. Since 2013, non-hydro renewables added 3,500 TWh to the world’s power generation, 14 times more than nuclear’s roughly 250 TWh, and generated 80 percent more power than nuclear in 2023.”

In 2023, the European Union achieved its largest renewable capacity additions ever and the renewable share in total electricity generation reached a record 44 percent. Solar and wind plants together produced 721 TWh compared to nuclear’s 588 TWh.

For the first time ever, non-hydro renewables generated more power than all fossil fuels combined in 2023. Fossil fuel power generation dropped by a record 19 percent, reaching its lowest level ever and accounting for less than one-third of the EU’s electricity generation.

In China, solar PV produced a total of 578 TWh of electricity in 2023, 40 percent more than nuclear’s 413 TWh. Wind power generation first exceeded nuclear in 2012: in 2023, wind produced 877 TWh, more than doubling nuclear generation. Adding other non-hydro renewables like biomass to solar and wind, the net total generation of 1,643 TWh in 2023 was four times the nuclear output.

Keep in mind that China is the only country in the world with a significant nuclear power expansion program. It might be a stretch for WNISR-2024 to state that “nuclear power remains irrelevant in the international market for electricity generating technologies”, but it is heading in that direction.

Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.

September 22, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics international | Leave a comment

Labour backs nuclear – but at what cost?

for the UK consumer, nuclear new building means expensive electricity and offers little in terms of addressing climate change.

With new funding announced for the prospective Sizewell C plant, the government seems committed to nuclear power.

However, the cost of nuclear newbuild in the UK is staggering and,
even if built, sufficient new capacity will not arrive soon enough to help
mitigate climate change.

UK electricity consumers should hope that the
target of 24 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050 slips into obscurity. “We
will ensure the long-term security of the sector, extend the lifetime of
existing plants, and we will get Hinkley Point C over the line.” That was
Labour’s manifesto commitment to nuclear power, and the government has
already put money on the line.

In late August, it announced additional
funding of up to £5.5 billion for the proposed Sizewell C plant, which
would be only the UK’s second nuclear construction project since the
completion of Sizewell B in 1995, if built.

However, for the UK consumer, nuclear new building means expensive electricity and offers little in terms of addressing climate change. The UK’s operable nuclear capacity declined
from 12.2 GW in 1996 to 5.8 GW in 2023. Only nine reactors are still
generating power and two are under construction. Eight of the operable
reactors came online between 1983 and 1989, making the youngest 45 years
old. Last year, the Hartlepool and Heysham 1 plants gained modest life
extensions to 2026, and operator EdF hopes to extend the lives of its other
Advanced Gas Cooled (AGRs) reactors to 2028.

However, there is little likelihood that the eight remaining AGRs can continue in service beyond these dates. They were initially designed to last about 30 years, with the
decision to decommission based on the deterioration of irreplaceable
components such as the graphite core and boilers. Three AGRs – two built
in 1976 and one in 1983 – are already defueling, a preliminary step to
decommissioning. As a result, by 2030 at the latest, all of the UK’s AGRs
will be out of service.

Decommissioning costs the consumer money, and the
Nuclear Liabilities Fund has not kept up with the cost of decommissioning.
In its third report of 2022-23, the House of Commons Committee of Public
Accounts noted that the government had already been forced to provide
additional funding of £10.7 billion and that there remained “a strong
likelihood that more taxpayers’ money will be required”.

In addition, despite the first nuclear reactors coming into service in the 1950s, there
is still no clear plan for the permanent storage of the most hazardous
forms of radioactive waste.

The government’s most recent energy and
emissions projections, published in November 2023, forecast the
volume-weighted wholesale electricity price in 2030 at between £36.6/MWh,
in a low fuel price scenario, and £58.5/MWh in a high fuel price scenario.
The UK’s latest licensing round for renewable energy, the results of
which were announced in September, returned CfD prices for solar projects
of £50.07/MWh, onshore wind at £50.90/MWh and offshore wind at
£58.87/MWh (2012 prices).

At over £100/MWh in today’s money, even
without a further five years of inflation, Hinkley Point C is a chronic
deal for the UK electricity consumers. EdF wants a new funding model for
both the construction of Sizewell C and the lifetime extension of Sizewell
B, indicating that even the large CfD strike price for Hinkley Point C is
not enough to build new nuclear in the UK. This will almost certainly mean
UK consumers bearing more of the risk. The adoption of the proposed
Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model would see consumers paying for nuclear
plants years before they actually generate electricity.

 Energy Voice 18th Sept 2024.

Labour backs nuclear – but at what cost?

September 22, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Biden’s Grand Alliance against Russia in Ukraine beginning to recognize the N word…Negotiations

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 20 Sept 24

The US 32 month long proxy war against Russia is not quite over. But everyone in America’s important NATO allies knows America’s Ukraine proxy is losing badly with its military near collapse. The two hundred billions the US and NATO have poured into Ukraine have made not a dent in achieving the ‘good guys’ war aims of taking back the Donbas and Crimea, receiving reparations from Russia, and gaining NATO membership.

While President Biden betrays nary a hint of that stark reality, his European NATO allies, greatly more affected by the economic consequences of this than America, certainly are.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently said, “I believe that now is the time to discuss how to arrive at peace from this state of war, indeed at a faster pace.” Scholz further stated that he will impose a limit on open ended aid to Ukraine and is working on a diplomatic settlement that will include Ukraine ceding territory to Russia.

A senior French diplomat recently told Le Figaro the same thing, citing that the Donbas and Crimea are beyond Ukraine’s military capability and that France lines up with Germany that only a negotiated settlement will end the war.

Insulated from the economic angst of its Western European allies, the US sees no need to deal with reality. For President Biden and his war cabinet including VP Harris, the words ‘negotiated settlement’ and ‘ceding territory’ dare not pass the lips of US diplomats acting more like war generals than statespersons.
Biden and company are still running around like Chicken Little, chirping ‘The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming, to take over Poland on their march to the English Channel.’

That includes presidential candidate Kamala Harris who repeated that delusional meme in her presidential debate.

The US proxy war against Russia, with Ukrainians doing all the dying and the country in ruins, is headed to a negotiated settlement in spite of President Biden’s intransigence.



September 22, 2024 Posted by | politics, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »