Nuclear start-up Newcleo drops plans for British factory in favour of France
COMMENT. This is a very interesting article. For one thing, it shows that these “advanced” nuclear reactors require plutonium to get the fission process happening. It also claims that these advanced nuclear reactors can solve the problem of plutonium wastes. That is not true. The wastes resulting from this process are smaller in volume, but more highly toxic. That means that they require the same area/voume of space for disposal as the original plutonium. On another angle, it does indicate the confusion that the British government is in about the way ahead in their highly suspect “Civil Nuclear Roadmap”. And on another angle again, it shows how Macron’s France is putting all its eggs into the one nuclear basket. When we look at the extreme costs, and the extreme climate effects, Macron’s French nuclear obsession is likely to result in political suicide.
Matt Oliver, Sun, 21 January 2024, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-start-drops-plans-british-131702123.html#:~:text=A%20British%20nuclear%20startup%20has,lobbied%20personally%20by%20Emmanuel%20Macron.
A British nuclear startup has dropped plans to build a pioneering power plant in Cumbria and will invest £4bn in France instead, after it was lobbied personally by Emmanuel Macron.
Newcleo, which is headquartered in London, is developing a type of mini nuclear power plant, known as an advanced modular reactor (AMR), that will use nuclear waste for fuel.
The company had hoped to tap into the UK’s vast stockpile of waste at Sellafield, where it wanted to invest £2bn in a waste reprocessing factory and AMR that would have created around 500 jobs.
It was also planning a similarly-sized facility in France.
But Stefano Buono, Newcleo’s chief executive and founder, said the company has now dropped the UK plans after the Government ruled out giving private companies access to the Sellafield stockpile in a nuclear industry “roadmap” published this month.
Instead, Newcleo is planning an enlarged development at an undisclosed location in the south of France, where it now plans to spend £4bn and create around 1,000 jobs, he said.
As part of that scheme, it will buy nuclear waste from French state energy giant EDF.
The company is also currently in the middle of a €1bn (£860m) fundraising.
The decision comes after the company was blocked from participating in the UK’s design competition for mini nuclear reactors.
By comparison, France has eagerly supported Newcleo and Mr Buono was lobbied repeatedly for investment by President Macron in face-to-face meetings.
Newcleo, which was also invited to last year’s “Choose France” business summit at the Palace of Versailles, has never been offered an in-person meeting with a British prime minister.
Mr Buono told The Telegraph: “Our plan initially was to use one factory in France and one in the UK.
“Now, we will double the capacity of France and we are not investing in the UK.”
He added that the company had hoped to pioneer its technology in Britain but added: “In two years, we were not able to even locate the site, so we have decided to accept the offer from France.
“We can proceed with our business model there.”
Newcleo’s decision to build its first plant abroad comes amid growing frustration within the British nuclear industry over the slow progress the Government has made towards identifying sites for new power plants.
The loss of significant investment to France will also be seen as the latest sign that Downing Street’s efforts to attract business investment are being outshone by President Macron, who has launched a charm offensive to lure companies across the Channel since Brexit.
He was the only G7 leader to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week, while he has rolled out the red carpet for business leaders including Tesla boss Elon Musk and JP Morgan banker Jamie Dimon at his annual Choose France event.
Last year’s summit resulted in major deals, with Taiwanese car battery maker ProLogium unveiling plans for a €5.2bn plant at the port of Dunkirk and Verkor, a French company, pledging a €1.6bn battery factory there too.
In the UK, six SMR developers including Rolls-Royce have been shortlisted for support under a competition run by Great British Nuclear.
Newcleo was not considered because of the AMR’s lead cooling system and unusual fuel, Mr Buono has claimed.
The company’s novel design would run on processed plutonium, helping countries such as the UK dispose of the dangerous waste, which is expensive to manage. [Ed. This ignores the fact that this process results in a smaller volume of more highly toxic waste]
At Sellafield, the UK has amassed 140 tonnes of plutonium – the world’s biggest stockpile – as a result of historic nuclear weapons programmes and abandoned efforts to develop so-called fast breeding reactors that would have used it as fuel.
A massive effort is currently under way at the Cumbrian site to safely store the waste, but Mr Buono and his colleagues have argued it could be put to better use as reactor fuel.
The entrepreneur made his fortune selling cancer treatment developer AAA to Novartis for $3.9bn (£3.2bn) in 2017, reportedly earning him $420m.
His company has the backing of the Agnelli industrialist family, which made its money from Fiat and Ferrari.
The French government is expected to confirm a deal with Newcleo later this year.
The UK Government did not respond to requests for comment.
Nuclear goes backwards, again, as wind and solar enjoy another year of record growth.
Jim Green 21 January 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-goes-backwards-again-as-wind-and-solar-enjoy-another-year-of-record-growth/
The nuclear renaissance of the late-2000s was a bust due to the Fukushima disaster and catastrophic cost overruns with reactor projects. The latest renaissance is heading the same way, i.e. nowhere. Nuclear power went backwards last year.
There were five reactor start-ups and five permanent closures in 2023 with a net loss of 1.7 gigawatts (GW) of capacity. There were just six reactor construction starts in 2023, five of them in China.
Due to the ageing of the reactor fleet, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) anticipates the closure of 10 reactors (10 GW) per year from 2018 to 2050.
Thus the industry needs an annual average of 10 reactor construction starts, and 10 reactor startups (grid connections), just to maintain its current output. Over the past decade (2014-23), construction starts have averaged 6.1 and reactor startups have averaged 6.7.
The number of operable power reactors is 407 to 413 depending on the definition of operability, well down from the 2002 peak of 438.
Nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen to 9.2 percent, its lowest share in four decades and little more than half of its peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.
Over the two decades 2004-2023, there were 102 power reactor startups and 104 closures worldwide: 49 startups in China with no closures; and a net decline of 51 reactors in the rest of the world.
In China, there were five reactor construction starts in 2023 and just one reactor startup. Put another way, there was just one reactor construction start outside China in 2023. So much for the hype about a new nuclear renaissance.
Small modular reactors and ‘advanced’ nuclear power
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are the subject of endless hype but there were no SMR construction starts or startups last year. The biggest SMR news in 2023 was NuScale Power’s decision to abandon its flagship project in Idaho despite securing astronomical subsidies amounting to around US$4 billion (A$6.1 billion) from the US government.
The pro-nuclear Breakthrough Institute noted in a November 2023 article that efforts to commercialise a new generation of ‘advanced’ nuclear reactors “are simply not on track” and it warned nuclear advocates not to “whistle past this graveyard”:
It wrote:
“The NuScale announcement follows several other setbacks for advanced reactors. Last month, X-Energy, another promising SMR company, announced that it was canceling plans to go public. This week, it was forced to lay off about 100 staff.
“In early 2022, Oklo’s first license application was summarily rejected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the agency had even commenced a technical review of Oklo’s Aurora reactor.
The nuclear renaissance of the late-2000s was a bust due to the Fukushima disaster and catastrophic cost overruns with reactor projects. The latest renaissance is heading the same way, i.e. nowhere. Nuclear power went backwards last year.
There were five reactor start-ups and five permanent closures in 2023 with a net loss of 1.7 gigawatts (GW) of capacity. There were just six reactor construction starts in 2023, five of them in China.
Due to the ageing of the reactor fleet, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) anticipates the closure of 10 reactors (10 GW) per year from 2018 to 2050.
Thus the industry needs an annual average of 10 reactor construction starts, and 10 reactor startups (grid connections), just to maintain its current output. Over the past decade (2014-23), construction starts have averaged 6.1 and reactor startups have averaged 6.7.
The number of operable power reactors is 407 to 413 depending on the definition of operability, well down from the 2002 peak of 438.
Nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen to 9.2 percent, its lowest share in four decades and little more than half of its peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.
Over the two decades 2004-2023, there were 102 power reactor startups and 104 closures worldwide: 49 startups in China with no closures; and a net decline of 51 reactors in the rest of the world.
In China, there were five reactor construction starts in 2023 and just one reactor startup. Put another way, there was just one reactor construction start outside China in 2023. So much for the hype about a new nuclear renaissance.
Nuclear decline vs. record renewables growth
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has just released its ‘Renewables 2023’ report and it makes for a striking contrast with the nuclear industry’s malaise.
Nuclear power suffered a net loss of 1.7 GW capacity in 2023, whereas renewable capacity additions amounted to a record 507 GW, almost 50 percent higher than 2022. This is the 22nd year in a row that renewable capacity additions set a new record, the IEA states. Solar PV alone accounted for three-quarters of renewable capacity additions worldwide in 2023.
Nuclear power accounts for a declining share of share of global electricity generation (currently 9.2 percent) whereas renewables have grown to 30.2 percent. The IEA expects renewables to reach 42 percent by 2028 thanks to a projected 3,700 GW of new capacity over the next five years in the IEA’s ‘main case’.
The IEA states that the world is on course to add more renewable capacity in the next five years than has been installed since the first commercial renewable energy power plant was built more than 100 years ago.
Solar and wind combined have already surpassed nuclear power generation and the IEA notes that over the next five years, several other milestones will likely be achieved:
— In 2025, renewables surpass coal-fired electricity generation to become the largest source of electricity generation
— In 2025, wind surpasses nuclear electricity generation
— In 2026, solar PV surpasses nuclear electricity generation
— In 2028, renewable energy sources account for over 42 percent of global electricity generation, with the share of wind and solar PV doubling to 25 percent
Tripling renewables
The IEA states in its ‘Renewables 2023’ report that:
“Prior to the COP28 climate change conference in Dubai, the International Energy Agency (IEA) urged governments to support five pillars for action by 2030, among them the goal of tripling global renewable power capacity. Several of the IEA priorities were reflected in the Global Stocktake text agreed by the 198 governments at COP28, including the goals of tripling renewables and doubling the annual rate of energy efficiency improvements every year to 2030. Tripling global renewable capacity in the power sector from 2022 levels by 2030 would take it above 11 000 GW, in line with IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) Scenario.
“Under existing policies and market conditions, global renewable capacity is forecast to reach 7300 GW by 2028. This growth trajectory would see global capacity increase to 2.5 times its current level by 2030, falling short of the tripling goal.”
In the IEA’s ‘accelerated case’, 4,500 GW of new renewable capacity will be added over the next five years (compared to 3,700 GW in the ‘main case’), nearing the tripling goal.
Tripling nuclear?
The goal of tripling renewables by 2030 is a stretch but it is not impossible. Conversely, the ‘pledge’ signed by just 22 nations at COP28 to triple nuclear power by 2050 appears absurd.
The Labor federal government signed Australia up to the renewables pledge but not the nuclear pledge. The Coalition wants to do the opposite, and also opposes the Labor government’s target of 82 per cent renewable power supply by 2030.
One of the lies being peddled by the Coalition is that nuclear power capacity could increase by 80 percent over the next 30 years. That is based on a ‘high case’ scenario from the IAEA. However the IAEA’s ‘low case’ scenario — ignored by the Coalition — is for another 30 years of stagnation.
So should we go with the IAEA’s high or low scenarios, or split the difference perhaps?
According to a report by the IAEA itself, the Agency’s ‘high’ forecasts have consistently proven to be ridiculous and even its ‘low’ forecasts are too high — by 13 percent on average.
Nuclear power won’t increase by 80 percent by 2050 and it certainly won’t triple; indeed it will struggle to maintain current output given the ageing of the reactor fleet and recent experience with construction projects.
Comparing nuclear and renewables in China
China’s nuclear program added only 1.2 GW capacity in 2023 while wind and solar combined added 278 GW. Michael Barnard noted in CleanTechnica that allowing for capacity factors, the nuclear additions amount to about 7 terrawatt-hours (TWh) of new low carbon generation per year, while wind and solar between them will contribute about 427 TWh annually, over 60 times more than nuclear.
Barnard commented:
“One of the things that western nuclear proponents claim is that governments have over-regulated nuclear compared to wind and solar, and China’s regulatory regime for nuclear is clearly not the USA’s or the UK’s. They claim that fears of radiation have created massive and unfair headwinds, and China has a very different balancing act on public health and public health perceptions than the west. They claim that environmentalists have stopped nuclear development in the west, and while there are vastly more protests in China than most westerners realize, governmental strategic programs are much less susceptible to public hostility.
“And finally, western nuclear proponents complain that NIMBYs block nuclear expansion, and public sentiment and NIMBYism is much less powerful in China with its Confucian, much more top down governance system.
“China’s central government has a 30 year track record of building massive infrastructure programs, so it’s not like it is missing any skills there. China has a nuclear weapons program, so the alignment of commercial nuclear generation with military strategic aims is in hand too. China has a strong willingness to finance strategic infrastructure with long-running state debt, so there are no headwinds there either.
“Yet China can’t scale its nuclear program at all. It peaked in 2018 with 7 reactors with a capacity of 8.2 GW. For the five years since then then it’s been averaging 2.3 GW of new nuclear capacity, and last year only added 1.2 GW …”
Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.
The Politics of Nuclear Waste Disposal: Lessons from Australia
22 Jan 2024 | Jim Green and Dimity Hawkins, https://www.apln.network/projects/voices-from-pacific-island-countries/the-politics-of-nuclear-waste-disposal-lessons-from-australia
Click here to download the full report.
In this report, Jim Green and Dimity Hawkins explore Australia’s long and complex engagement with nuclear waste issues. With the failure to remediate atomic bomb test sites, and repeated failures to establish a national nuclear waste repository, the approaches of successive Australian governments to radioactive waste management deserve close scrutiny.
A recurring theme is the violation of the rights of Aboriginal First Nations Peoples and their successful efforts to resist the imposition of nuclear waste facilities on their traditional lands through effective community campaigning and legal challenges. Green and Hawkins argue for the incorporation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Australian law, and amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Act to remove clauses which weaken or override Indigenous cultural heritage protections and land rights.
In addition, they highlight the need for studies, clean-up and monitoring of all British nuclear weapons test sites in Australia in line with the positive obligations in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). In light of the failure to manage existing radioactive waste management challenges, it must be questioned whether the Australian government can successfully manage the challenges of high-level nuclear waste management posed by the AUKUS defence pact and the plan to purchase and build nuclear-powered submarines.
This report was produced as part of a project on Nuclear Disarmament and the Anthropocene: Voices from Pacific Island Countries, sponsored by Ploughshares Fund.
Ontario is about to decide whether to overhaul Canada’s oldest nuclear power plant. Does it deserve a second life?
All of these are Candu reactors – Canada’s homegrown reactor design. They deteriorate with age. Inside their cores, pressure tubes (which contain the uranium fuel) grow longer, thinner and weaker. They begin to sag and corrode, increasing the risk of ruptures. Feeder pipes, which supply water to the pressure tubes, also corrode and thin.
Globe and Mail, MATTHEW MCCLEARN, 21 Jan 24
The Pickering Nuclear Generating Station’s dull, mottled-grey concrete domes testify to its more than half a century of faithful service. Lately, its six operating reactors have produced enough electricity to supply 1.5 million people, about one-tenth of Ontario’s total population.
In the coming weeks, Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith is expected to reveal whether the province will extend the plant’s life. A study last summer from Ontario Power Generation, the station’s owner, examined the feasibility of refurbishing Pickering’s four “B” reactors, commissioned between 1983 and 1986. OPG has said there’s no technical reason the work can’t proceed. If approved, it would begin in 2028, with the aim of returning the reactors to service in the mid-2030s.
The real question is whether it’s worth it.
A firm cost estimate for extending the reactors’ lifespan has not been finalized. Refurbishments under way at OPG’s Darlington nuclear plant in Clarington and Bruce Power’s station in Tiverton have cost between $2-billion and more than $3-billion per reactor. The reactors at Pickering, Canada’s oldest nuclear plant, could cost even more, though their output is relatively small by modern standards.
Ontario’s government has said little about how it is weighing this decision, and it’s unclear what other options, if any, the province is considering. OPG has said its feasibility study would compare the refurbishment’s economic viability to “potential alternatives,” but the finished report has not been released publicly.
The Globe and Mail made a freedom of information request for a copy of the study. But Sean Keelor, chief administrative officer at Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, withheld the document in its entirety. He cited exemptions within the province’s Freedom of Information Act for “advice to government” and for information that could damage the “economic or other interests of Ontario.”
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which regulates the industry, allows utilitiesto perform upgrades thateffectively double reactors’ lives, as long as “all practicable safety improvements to bring the facility up to modern standards” have been identified. Upgrading Pickering would be no small undertaking.
“They are very old reactors, and the equipment is out of date,” said Ibrahim Attieh, a reactor physicist who worked on Candu designs. “It’s going to be a lot more costly to retrofit new equipment in.”
The Pickering station, situated on the shore of Lake Ontario about 30 kilometres east of downtown Toronto, also includes the four 1970s-era Pickering “A” reactors, which are not under consideration for refurbishment.
Two have been dormant for decades after an aborted refurbishment, and the remaining two are scheduled to shut down permanently this year.
All of these are Candu reactors – Canada’s homegrown reactor design. They deteriorate with age. Inside their cores, pressure tubes (which contain the uranium fuel) grow longer, thinner and weaker. They begin to sag and corrode, increasing the risk of ruptures. Feeder pipes, which supply water to the pressure tubes, also corrode and thin.
Candus were originally expected to operate for about 30 years. The industry has said decisions on whether to refurbish should be made after a quarter century – a milestone Pickering B has already passed.
All refurbishments involve sending workers into a reactor’s radioactive core, to replace major components such as pressure tubes and feeder pipes. But the scope of work varies considerably, depending on the age, design and condition of components, as well as other factors. A utility might also improve other infrastructure at a nuclear plant, such as turbines and control room equipment.
Subo Sinnathamby, OPG’s chief projects officer, said that among the components that would need to be replaced at Pickering B are the steam generators, which use heat produced inside the core to boil water, creating steam that drives turbine blades.
Ms. Sinnathamby said these components are too large to be removed through the reactor’s airlocks.
“We will have to cut a hole in the dome to remove it,” she said.
Pickering B’s control room is straight out of the Cold War and would also require modernization.
Continue readingBig 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/
Scary simulator shows what could happen in the event of a nuclear disaster
Poppy Bilderbeck 21 Jan 24 (Videos on the original site)
Researchers have revealed what it would look like if a nuclear explosion occurred.
You may’ve seen – or heard, if you were in a different room watching Barbie – the sound of an atomic bomb going off in Oppenheimer, but do you know what effect one could have on its surroundings if it went off today?
Well, a team of researchers have harnessed the power of technology to predict what could happen.
A team of researchers from the University of Nicosia (UNIC) in Cyprus looked into what would happen in the event of a nuclear explosion, and how it could impact surrounding buildings and people.
Titled Nuclear explosion impact on humans indoors, the paper investigated what would happen if an intercontinental ballistic missile caused an atomic bomb explosion.
Using advanced computer modeling, the team created two videos showing how such an explosion would alter the temperature of its surroundings, alongside how the sheer force of the air the explosion would generate could impact buildings and people.
And if you wanted to see a simulation of what it looks like from a person’s point of view on the ground, well another video has been shared to X – formerly known as Twitter – by Historic Vids (@historyinmemes), and it’s pretty horrifying………………………………………………………. more https://www.unilad.com/news/world-news/nuclear-explosion-simulator-scary-670922-20240117
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…..
The Last Flurry: The US Congress and Australian Parliamentarians seek Assange’s Release
January 19, 2024 : Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/the-last-flurry-the-us-congress-and-australian-parliamentarians-seek-assanges-release/
On February 20, Julian Assange, the daredevil publisher of WikiLeaks, will be going into battle, yet again, with the British justice system – or what counts for it. The UK High Court will hear arguments from his team that his extradition to the United States from Britain to face 18 charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 would violate various precepts of justice. The proceedings hope to reverse the curt, impoverished decision by the remarkably misnamed Justice Jonathan Swift of the same court on June 6, 2023.
At this point, the number of claims the defence team can make are potentially many. Economy, however, has been called for: the two judges hearing the case have asked for a substantially shortened argument, showing, yet again, that the quality of British mercy tends to be sourly short. The grounds Assange can resort to are troublingly vast: CIA-sponsored surveillance, his contemplated assassination, his contemplated abduction, violation of attorney-client privilege, his poor health, the violation of free-speech, a naked, politicised attempt by an imperium to capture one of its greatest and most trenchant critics, and bad faith by the US government.
Campaigners for the cause have been frenzied. But as the solution to Assange’s plight is likely to be political, the burden falls on politicians to stomp and drum from within their various chambers to convince their executive counterparts. In the US Congress, House Resolution 934, introduced on December 13 by Rep. Paul A. Gosar, an Arizona Republican, expresses “the sense of the House of Representatives that regular journalistic activities are protected under the First Amendment, and that the United States ought to drop all charges against and attempts to extradite Julian Assange.”
The resolution sees a dramatic shift from the punishing, haute view taken by such figures as the late Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was one of the first political figures to suggest that Assange be crucified on the unsteady timber of the Espionage Act for disclosing US cables and classified information in 2010. The resolution acknowledges, for instance, that the disclosures by WikiLeaks “promoted public transparency through the exposure of the hiring of child prostitutes by Defense Department contractors, friendly fire incidents, human rights abuses, civilian killings, and United States use of psychological warfare.” The list could be sordidly longer but let’s not quibble.
Impressively, drafters of the resolution finally acknowledge that charging Assange under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for alleged conspiracy to help US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning access Defense Department computers was a fabled nonsense. For one, it was “impossible” – Manning “already had access to the mentioned computer.” Furthermore, “there was no proof Mr Assange had any contact with said intelligence analyst.”
Ire is also directed at the espionage counts, with the resolution noting that “no other publisher has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act prior to these 17 charges.” A successful prosecution of the publisher “would set a precedent allowing the United States to prosecute and imprison journalists for First Amendment protected activities, including the obtainment and publication of information, something that occurs on a regular basis.”
Acknowledgment is duly made of the importance of press freedoms to promote transparency and protect the Republic, the support for Assange, “sincere and steadfast”, no less, shown by “numerous human rights, press freedom, and privacy rights advocates and organizations”, and the desire by “at least 70 Senators and Members of Parliament from Australia, a critical United States ally and Mr Assange’s native country” for his return.
Members of Australia’s parliament, adding to the efforts last September to convince members of Congress that the prosecution be dropped, have also written to the UK Home Secretary, James Cleverly, requesting that he “undertake an urgent, thorough and independent assessment of the risks to Mr Assange’s health and welfare in the event that he is extradited to the United States.”
The members of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group draw Cleverly’s attention to the recent UK Supreme Court case of AAA v Secretary of State for the Home Department which found “that courts in the United Kingdom cannot just rely on third party assurances by foreign governments but rather are required to make independent assessments of the risk of persecution to individuals before any order is made removing them from the UK.
It follows that the approach taken by Lord Justices Burnett and Holroyde in USA v Assange [2021] EWHC 3133 was, to put it politely, a touch too confident in accepting assurances given by the US government regarding Assange’s treatment, were he to be extradited. “These assurances were not tested, nor was there any evidence of independent assessment as to the basis on which they could be given and relied upon.”
The conveners of the group point to Assange’s detention in Belmarsh prison since April 2019, his “significant health issues, exacerbated to a dangerous degree by his prolonged incarceration, that are of very real concern to us as his elected representatives.” They also point out the rather unusual consensus between the current Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his opposition number, Peter Dutton, that the “case has gone on for too long.” Continued legal proceedings, both in the UK, and then in the US were extradition to take place “would add yet more years to Mr Assange’s detention and further imperil his health.”
In terms of posterity’s calling, there are surely fewer better things at this point for a US president nearing mental oblivion to do, or a Tory government peering at electoral termination to facilitate, than the release of Assange. At the very least, it would show a grudging acknowledgment that the fourth estate, watchful of government’s egregious abuses, is no corpse, but a vital, thriving necessity.
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
1 This Month
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- October 2026 (39)
- 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
