Ukraine war – the changing face of weaponry
I mused today on the lovely words of the lovely war-mongering Australian Minister for Defence – Richard Marles. He’s nearly as good as that USA smarm master Antony Blinken – in choosing the nicest words to cover nasty stuff.
Today he was talking about Australia sending $millions to Ukraine – for:
uncrewed aerial systems air-to-ground precision munitions spurring on competition among Western nations to harness technology and drive down the equipment’s production cost.
All these weasel words sort of obscure the reality that one big goal is to support the American, Australian, and even Israeli weapons companies. Yes – Israel. In February, the Israeli company Elbit Systems received a A$917 million contract from the Australian Defence Department.
The other goal is to be part of American militarism and its experimental work in Ukraine.
You see – the beauty of the Ukraine war, for America, is that there should be no American lives at risk. Tough about the Ukrainian lives, (and of course the thousands more Russian soldiers’ lives don’t count).
But this is a sort of experimental interim-type war – between having troops of soldiers getting killed and just having heaps of civilians getting killed, (and seeing if America can win by having no persons at risk in it).
World War 1 was the classic – the ultimate war for killing soldiers. – estimated 9.7 million and also 10 million civilians
World War 2 an even bigger killer of soldiers – 20 million, but also 40 million civilians – an “improvement” in killing civilians.
The “in-between” wars – Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan – have still been a mixture of killing soldiers and civilians – but especially with the Afghanistan war – the emphasis shifted towards drone killings, with the officer directing the killing from the distant comfort of an office in USA.
So – getting back to the lovely Marles – he avoided words like “drones” and “missiles” – thus sort of obscuring the fact that Australian weapons are headed right into Russian territory as part of an American long distance attack. Of course, it is called defence – though it is not at all clear that Australia is under military threat from Russia.
Anyway, Ukraine is a good practise ground for deploying weapons that can kill civilians of another country. The weapons-makers are getting better and better at this. The Biden administration last month secretly shipped long-range missiles to Ukraine. The newest 1$billion package will include additional long-range ATACMS. Nuclear weapons might be deployed in Poland. Biden administration’s $850 billion defense budget request for fiscal year 2025 includes $69 billion for nuclear weapons.
It’s all great fun. USA will be able to more or less comfortably fight another country (? China) without putting any “boots on the ground”, (except perhaps a few Taiwanese boots – but after all, they’re not even being worn by white feet, so – no matter, really)
The only fly in the ointment is that American militarism is causing a reaction in other countries. They have populations and leaders who feel that they will have to reciprocate. And they too have gee-whiz clever men with little-boy minds who devise killing machines.
It is truly a vicious circle. There’s a lack of leaders with wisdom. But no shortage of the mealy-mouthed Marles and Blinkens who make it sound as if everything is OK.
TODAY. Japan – the return of the “Nuclear Village”?
A first in Japan – The municipal assembly of Genkai in southwestern Japan will request a survey to see if their area is suitable for an underground disposal site for highly radioactive waste. When the Mayor approves this survey, the Saga Prefecture town, will receive up to 2 billion yen ($12.9 million) in state subsidies for allowing the survey.
Local business associations had submitted separate requests for the survey to the assembly, hoping the subsidies and survey activity will prop up the local economy. The associations called on the town, as already a host of a nuclear power plant, to proactively cooperate with the central government.
That would be just the start. The nuclear lobby everywhere is well experienced in arranging “community benefits”. And in nowhere better than Japan.
It starts with the catch-cry of “Jobs Jobs” – first in the construction industry, then in the operations of the nuclear facility, local contractors, and then onward – to the promise of enlivening the local economy. But this wonderful goal is also to be achieved by all sorts of grants and subsidies – “incentives for acceptance” -in Japan Japan: “siting promotion subsidy” – community funds for local development.
For Japan, this could be back to the bad old days.
in the late 1990s, Iida Tetsunari3 coined the term ‘nuclear village’ to describe the ‘syndicate’ of actors pushing Japan’s nuclear power program – institutional and individual pro-nuclear advocates in the utilities, the nuclear industry, the bureaucracy, the Diet (Japan’s parliament), business federations, the media, and academia.
The influence of the nuclear industry over government and the judiciary was powerful and involved ‘regulatory capture’ – industry influence over safety regulation. In safety-related class-action lawsuits, the courts tended to decide in line with government interests to further develop Japan’s nuclear power program
Beyond just “normalisation” of areas hosting nuclear facilities, the “nuclear village” became a celebration of the wonderful, positive role of the nuclear industry in Japanese life, lauded in politics, business, and. education.
That worked out well for Japan, (and for the USA) – in Japan’s great industrial leap forward, and in overcoming and atoning for that old nuclear disaster – the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan’s success became a pointer towards other nuclear villages.
But then came the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in 2011, – and it all ground nearly to a halt. Public opposition to nuclear power has held the industry back over the years since.
But the small global phalanx of nuclear promoters continues to work assiduously to control public opinion. It preys on people’s fear of global heating, and on fears of economic downturn, and promotes nuclear facilities as ‘the answer”. It looks as if that message might now be being heard by at least one municipality in Japan.
Could this be the start of Japan’s nuclear village all over again?
Dutton’s nuclear policy backfires
Mike Seccombe The Saturday Paper, 27 Apr 24
This much can be said for Colin Boyce: he is not one of the federal Coalition’s nuclear nimbys. He would, if necessary, agree to have a nuclear power station in his electorate…………………………………………………..
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s announcement on March 12 that the Coalition would “shortly” announce about six sites across the country where nuclear reactors could be built forced the issue. Dutton’s plan would put them in places where coal-fired power stations were closing down.
The promised announcement of potential nuclear sites has been pushed progressively further into the future. Initially it was expected within a couple of weeks, then before the federal budget on May 14. Last Sunday, on the ABC’s Insiders program, Dutton would not commit to a pre-budget announcement, improbably blaming the recent stabbing incidents in Sydney for the delay.
On Tuesday this week, Nationals leader David Littleproud told Sky News the Coalition parties were “not going to be bullied into putting this at any time line, but you will see it before the election”.
Whenever the announcement does eventually come, Boyce’s central Queensland electorate, Flynn, is likely to be on the list.
Boyce’s acceptance of nuclear power in his electorate is not so much an endorsement of the policy being pushed by his leaders as an acceptance that he has no other choice.
Flynn, twice the size of Tasmania and dotted with coalmines and gas wells, produces vast amounts of energy, most of which is shipped overseas.
………………………………………………………………….. Boyce says, probably correctly, “ there will be no coal-firedpower stations in Queensland operational after 2035”.
He is not happy about that and is even less happy that the state opposition supported the government’s legislated target, for he has never accepted the need to stop burning fossil fuels.
Before his election to federal parliament, Boyce served five years in the Queensland parliament, representing the coal seat of Callide. There, he argued for the construction of more coal-fired power stations. He denied the reality of human-induced climate change.
Opposition to fossil fuels, he told state parliament on June 17, 2021, was “driven by the mind-numbing, eco-Marxist Millennials and upper middle-class ‘wokes’ who have been indoctrinated with some quasi-religious belief that coal is bad and carbon dioxide is poisoning the planet”.
……………………………………………………………………. Even within the Coalition’s ranks there are some who see the move as being at least as much an attempt to address a political problem as to address the climate crisis, although most will not say so publicly.
Bridget Archer will, however. The Tasmanian MP – one among a much-depleted cohort of moderate Liberals after the 2022 election – issued a warning to her colleagues via the pages of the Nine newspapers last month that nuclear energy should not be put forward as an alternative to wind and solar.
“There is no point even having a nuclear discussion if you don’t accept a need to decarbonise, to transition away from coal and gas,” she said. “There only is a case for nuclear if there is a fairly rapid transition to large-scale renewables, otherwise why are you doing it?”
She then answered her own question: “I think part of the reason for having the discussion is to keep people in the tent on net zero.”
Others privately assess the motivations of the federal Coalition leadership more harshly. They suggest it’s not primarily about getting nuclear up but about slowing the transition to wind and solar and thereby extending the life of fossil fuels in power generation.
Certainly, the chances of getting the federal parliament to greenlight a domestic nuclear industry are remote. For about 25 years, nuclear power has been prohibited by law in Australia, and it was the Howard Coalition government that banned it, under a 1998 deal with the Greens to get other legislation through the Senate.
Given the ever-growing proclivity of Australian electors to give their votes to progressive independent candidates and Greens, there is a good chance neither major party will win majority government at the next election. Even if the Coalition did win the House of Representatives, it almost certainly would not gain a majority in the Senate. Unless Labor recanted on its vehement opposition to nuclear power, Dutton’s plan would fall at the first hurdle.
……………………………………. the available evidence suggests even those members of the federal Coalition parties who publicly spruik the Dutton policy lack the courage of their convictions.
Last month, shortly after Dutton made his big announcement, reporters for the Nine papers contacted a dozen of them.
“Twelve opposition MPs have publicly backed lifting the moratorium on nuclear power in Australia but will not commit to hosting a nuclear power plant in their own electorate,” their story began
……………………………………………….. Two points. First, the Coalition plan no longer involves small modular nuclear reactors, but instead would rely on building traditional large plants. Second, the polling to which Littleproud referred actually showed a lot of people were woefully misinformed about the cost of nuclear power.
When asked to rank sources of energy “in terms of total cost including infrastructure and household price”, 40 per cent of respondents thought solar and wind power were the most expensive, compared with 36 per cent who thought nuclear was, and 24 who picked coal and gas. Fully one third of respondents thought nuclear was the cheapest option.
They are spectacularly wrong. According to the most recent GenCost report – the annual collaboration between the Australian science agency CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) – SMRs are by far the most expensive way of generating electricity. The “levelised cost” of power from an SMR would be $382 to $636 per megawatt hour, while solar and wind would cost between $91 and $130 per MWh.
The Dutton response was to attack the experts. He claimed GenCost underestimated the cost of renewables because it did not include expenditure on the transmission infrastructure required to integrate them into the grid.
This was untrue, as the report’s authors promptly made clear. Dutton was undeterred, however, which in turn saw the chief executive of the CSIRO, Douglas Hilton, release an open letter defending the importance of independent scientific endeavour.
Last Tuesday, the same day as Littleproud went on Sky News and maintained the falsehood that nuclear power was cheaper than wind and solar, another report was released, further confirming more wind and solar energy was simultaneously lowering both prices and emissions from the electricity sector.
The quarterly Energy Dynamics report from the energy market operator showed that in the first three months of this year, renewables provided 39 per cent of power in the east coast power grid, almost 2 per cent more than in the corresponding period last year.
……………………………..“We are increasingly seeing renewable energy records being set which is a good thing for Australian consumers as it is key in driving prices down and NEM [National Electricity Market] emissions intensity to new record lows,” AEMO’s executive general manager of reform delivery, Violette Mouchaileh, said in a media release accompanying the report…………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2024/04/27/duttons-nuclear-policy-backfires
How much will the UK’s new nuclear submarines really cost?
The terrible truth is that nobody knows how much this will cost.
25th April
What does it cost, and how many jobs does it actually create? This is
especially important now with the next generation of nuclear-powered
submarines, the “Dreadnought” class, starting construction.
When the UK Government announced the programme to replace the current Valiant class
boats, the cost they announced in Parliament, £31 billion, was to build
four submarines.
This is as disingenuous as announcing the cost of a
revamped NHS as the cost to build four hospitals. The total cost of
ownership over the projected 30-year lifespan is much larger.
We have reached a figure of over £600bn. Shocking? Indeed. Surprising? Compared to
what, the HS2 rail link? The terrible truth is that nobody knows how much
this will cost. The annual report of the government’s own
“Infrastructure and Projects” authority has a lot of bad news,
including a “red” score for the development of the Dreadnought boats’
new engines. In short, this means it can’t be done. Sounds expensive.
The National 25th April 2024
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24277002.much-will-uks-new-nuclear-submarines-really-cost
Nuclear Power’s Lethal, Larcenous End Game
BY HARVEY WASSERMAN 26 Apr 24
For the first time since 1954, no large new atomic reactors are under construction or on order in the United States.
On March 1, 2024, Vogtle Unit 4 connected to the Georgia grid …years behind schedule and billions over budget. Once hyped as “too cheap to meter,” America’s last large light-water reactor thus forever froze the “Peaceful Atom” in financial failure.
Despite enormous public hype and subsidies, ZERO new US atomic reactors—large or small— are likely to become significantly available here for at least a decade.
The first will likely be an unproven “Small Modular Reactor” prototype already leaning toward a trillion-dollar failure.
***
When it comes to the myth of nuke power helping to fight global warming…there’s no there there.
Atomic reactors cause climate chaos. Some 415 reactors directly heat our air and water in concert with mega-explosions like Chernobyl and Fukushima. All pour radioactive carbon 14 into a lethal brew of filth and wastes.
Despite the latest round of “Nuclear Renaissance” hype, the US lacks the industrial capacity to produce impactful new reactors—large or small— before 2030, if then.
The void comes when we most desperately need to reduce carbon emissions. The mega-grift for unproven new nukes cripples the vital transition to renewables, multiplying the planet-killing impacts of fossil fuels…and of decrepit old reactors whose average age is now over 40.
The original fantasy that the “Peaceful Atom” would be “too cheap to meter” came from Atomic Energy Commission Chair Lewis Strauss, played by Robert Downey, Jr., in “Oppenheimer.”
Harry Truman’s 1952 Paley Commission Report on the future of energy had predicted an epic boom in renewables, including 15,000,000 solar heated US homes by 1975.
But in December, 1953, President Eisenhower—in a remarkably war-like speech—told the United Nations that “Atoms for Peace” would limitlessly power the planet.
On September 6, 1954, the Navy and Westinghouse began building the first US commercial reactor, which opened at Shippingport, Pennsylvania, on May 26, 1958.
In 1974 Richard Nixon promised a thousand US reactors by the year 2000. There were in fact 104. With Vogtle 4’s opening, there are now 94—and none on order or under construction.
Atomic power has become what Forbes Magazine called in 1985 “the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.”
A 2014 study of 180 nukes worldwide said 175 of them cost 117% more than promised, while going 64% beyond schedule.
Despite the early hype, the Peaceful Atom’s financial catastrophes are too frequent to count, and with price tags too huge to compile, including…
X the 1966 “We Almost Lost Detroit” accident at Michigan’s Fermi I, costing at least $100 million;
X the 1979 Meltdown at Three Mile Island, which—aside from killing innumerable downwinders—converted a $900 million asset to a $2 billion liability;
X the 1983 Washington Public Power System’s $2 billion pubic bond default, the first of its kind, killing four reactors then under construction;
X Sacramento’s 1989 landslide vote to shut the municipal utility’s money-losing Rancho Seco reactor, where surrounding solar panels (unlike the dead nuke) still produce juice;
X the Public Service of New Hampshire’s 1988 dump of Seabrook Unit Two, fueling the first investor-owned utility bankruptcy since the Great Depression;
X the 1998 failure of New York’s never-to-operate $7 billion Shoreham, which shattered the Long Island Lighting Company;
X the 2017 collapse of South Carolina’s VC Summer, whose $9 billion dead loss joined Vogtle’s $20 billion cost overrun to bankrupt Westinghouse;
X NuScale’s 2023 SMR collapse in Idaho, fusing into financial failure the industry’s ever-escalating crises in safety, seismic instability, un-insurabililty, heat and radiation emissions, terrorism, war.
Massive explosions at Russia’s Kyshtym and New Mexico’s Waste Isolation Pilot Project underscore the industry’s unsolved waste management problem. So does radioactive devastation at California’s Santa Susanna and the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State.
After seven decades of experience, massive 21st century catastrophes continue in the US, Finland, France, England.
Westinghouse’s Summer/Vogtle bankruptcy follows 70 years of a “negative learning curve.”
Finland’s Olkiluoto, France’s Flamanville and England’s double reactor project at Hinckley Point are all hugely over budget and years behind schedule. Olkiluoto has occasionally shut to make way for cheaper wind and hydro.
Many of France’s flagship 56 reactors regularly curtail their output for generic repairs…or as rivers become too global-heated to cool the cores without serious downstream eco-damage.
But Germany’s 2023 final reactor closures allow more than half its power to come more cheaply and reliably from renewables.
California’s similar-sized economy now often gets 100+% of its power from renewables, dwarfing remnant double reactors at Diablo Canyon, now costing $1+ billion/year over market.
Undaunted, Brussels’ World Nuclear Summit just hyped a tripled global fleet, calling for investments beyond $5 trillion to fund a production schedule than many believe is simply impossible.
The international banking response has been a grim “Just Say No”…accompanied by a vote of confidence in a renewable future.
But most terrifying is the demand that decrepit reactors (average age 42+) operate without meaningful inspections or insurance…………………………………………. https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/04/26/nuclear-powers-lethal-larcenous-end-game/
Dutton’s atomic bet threatens Coalition chain reaction over climate
Dutton blew this strategy to pieces when he indicated earlier this year that he would soon unveil a far more ambitious project. One that would dramatically escalate the political debate by embracing large-scale baseload nuclear in places like the Hunter and La Trobe valleys, Anglesea in Victoria, South Australia’s Port Augusta, Collie in WA and Tarong in Littleproud’s Queensland electorate.
“He was winning, now he’s losing”, said one strategist of Dutton’s switch from a vague pro-nuclear policy to one that promises specifics.
Rather than keep the heat on Labor’s handling of cost-of-living pain as inflation stays high, the opposition leader’s nuclear venture risks becoming the story.
https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/dutton-s-atomic-bet-threatens-coalition-chain-reaction-over-climate-20240425-p5fml7 Jacob Greber Senior correspondent, Apr 25, 2024
A golden rule in politics, attributed to Napoleon, is that you should never interrupt your enemy when they’re struggling or making mistakes.
Peter Dutton’s push to engineer an ambitious nuclear power policy that keeps the Coalition from fracturing over climate policy is as fine an example as you could hope to find of premature politicus interruptus.
Rather than keeping the heat on Labor’s handling of the economy and ongoing cost-of-living pain – see for instance this week’s diabolical inflation data that has all but killed off any interest rate relief this year – Dutton’s nuclear venture risks becoming the story.
It will shunt the Coalition into a realm in which it has to elaborate on its plans for emissions targets; clarify whether it has one for 2035, and come clean on whether it will crab walk away from the Paris Agreement altogether.
Pivoting to nuclear means the Coalition will very likely miss the nation’s current 2030 target (of cutting emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels). Dutton and Nationals leader David Littleproud both see nuclear as a way to slow or halt the rollout of renewables and new electricity transmission. The political contrast for voters will be that Labor is already executing a plan to reach that goal.
Many inside Labor can’t believe their luck, already salivating at how to weaponise Dutton’s nuclear policy into a potent political fear campaign at the next election.
It is not widely understood – as has been explained here before – that the 2030 target is an international promise that cannot be watered down. Setting sail on a policy that falls short, intentionally, is only possible by withdrawing from Paris.
Dutton has not made clear where he stands on these questions, which are at the heart of the Coalition’s current deliberations. There is no internal consensus, either among Liberals or with the Nationals.
These are not waters that Dutton or Littleproud want to drift in for too long. For moderate Liberals – including those hoping to regain the seats they lost in 2022’s climate election – it should be ringing alarm bells.
Initially, Dutton’s go-big, go-nuclear policy venture was slated to be unveiled ahead of the budget, triggering internal consternation among those who felt they had not been directly consulted, particularly across the National Party which has not yet signed onto the idea of large-scale nuclear power generation.
And if they do, the Nationals will want Dutton to deliver the same mega-buck regional roads, dam and rail spending splurge that Barnaby Joyce secured in exchange for backing Scott Morrison over net zero by 2050 in the lead-up to the 2021 Glasgow Climate Conference.
Until now, Littleproud has kept the embers glowing by supporting small-scale nuclear reactors, so-called SMRs, which conjure benign images of unobtrusive remotely located generators no larger than a truck.
Both leaders mirrored the Coalition’s standing position, including under Morrison, of seeking to undo John Howard’s 25-year-old ban on nuclear. They stuck to a simple approach – one that most voters would have no issue with – of asking why the nation can’t have an adult “conversation” about the pros and cons of nuclear power?
This stance had the political benefit of sounding eminently sensible while being bereft of detail or real-world consequence. Such as where these things might be built. And at what cost.
Dutton blew this strategy to pieces when he indicated earlier this year that he would soon unveil a far more ambitious project.
One that would dramatically escalate the political debate by embracing large-scale baseload nuclear in places like the Hunter and La Trobe valleys, Anglesea in Victoria, South Australia’s Port Augusta, Collie in WA and Tarong in Littleproud’s Queensland electorate.
Old coal stations repurposed, in other words.
Yet after weeks of internal wrangling, the timeline for that announcement has blown out to some time after the May 14 budget. It may yet be buried entirely, say some observers, which would be hugely embarrassing for Dutton given how far he has already ventured.
The delay is also instructive of ongoing division over climate policy within the Coalition that has not been resolved since Morrison’s defeat two years ago by Labor and the teal independents who plundered the Liberal party’s inner-city crown jewels.
Significantly, many inside the Coalition fear the opposition leader’s nuclear push will become a self-inflicted political wedge.
Like John Hewson’s ill-fated 1993 “Fightback!” GST promise, or Bill Shorten’s bold policy platform in 2019, Dutton is seen to be at risk of “painting a big target on our backs”.
“He was winning, now he’s losing”, said one strategist of Dutton’s switch from a vague pro-nuclear policy to one that promises specifics.
Many inside Labor can’t believe their luck, already salivating at how to weaponise Dutton’s nuclear policy into a potent political fear campaign at the next election.
Queensland Liberal National Party leader David Crisafulli’s repeated rejection of Dutton’s planned “nuclear renaissance” indicates he thinks it’s political suicide.
Every regional and marginal battleground seat can expect to be flooded with warnings about the dangers of nuclear energy, the risks of transporting uranium, and fights over where to store spent fuel.
Younger voters like Millennials are sensibly less allergic to the idea of nuclear energy than Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers, especially those who popped their political cherries during the nuclear disarmament movements of the Cold War.
But once the question becomes about where to locate these things – when you ask the locals – support tends to slide.
And then there are the attendant details. How will a nuclear power program that will not become a reality for at least 15 to 20 years help coal power workers being displaced by plant closures meanwhile?
Nuclear baseload energy offers the prospect of many good things, including a manufacturing renaissance. But making things in the 2030s will be nothing like making things in the 1950s. Current trends suggest robots will do most of the work, not humans.
Dutton’s determination to press ahead on nuclear – there are no signs at this point of a backdown, but keep your eyes open – could turn out to be a massive stroke of political genius, or fatal hubris.
The opposition leader had every right to feel confident after last year’s Voice to parliament referendum outcome. Polls such as this week’s Resolve Political Monitor show voters are drifting back to the Liberals.
But that shift is happening before Dutton and the Liberal party have really defined themselves, or offered details of what a future Coalition government will look like.
The nuclear policy – and its consequences for the Coalition’s climate and energy stance – will fill that void as quickly as an atomic chain reaction.
Instead of a 2025 election strategy that rests on telling voters how bad Labor is while dispensing pork barrel promises to swing electorates, the Coalition will be in the business of having to explain a hugely expensive, risky and complicated policy.
That’s one hell of a punt.
Nuclear-waste dams threaten Central Asia heartland
Dams holding large amounts of nuclear waste can be found in Kyrgyzstan’s
scenic hills. However, following a 2017 landslide they have become
unstable, threatening a possible Chernobyl-scale nuclear disaster if they
collapse.
Reuters 24th April 2024
Why Iran may accelerate its nuclear program, and Israel may be tempted to attack it
Iran’s nuclear sites will continue to present a tempting target for Israel in any further escalation of the conflict between the two.
The Bulletin, By Darya Dolzikova, Matthew Savill | April 26, 2024
On April 19, Israel carried out a strike deep inside Iranian territory, near the city of Isfahan. The attack was apparently in retaliation for a major Iranian drone and missile attack on Israel a few days earlier. This exchange between the two countries—which have historically avoided directly targeting each other’s territories—has raised fears of a potentially serious military escalation in the region.
Israel’s strike was carried out against an Iranian military site located in close proximity to the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, which hosts nuclear research reactors, a uranium conversion plant, and a fuel production plant, among other facilities. Although the attack did not target Iran’s nuclear facilities directly, earlier reports suggested that Israel was considering such attacks. The Iranian leadership has, in turn, threatened to reconsider its nuclear policy and to advance its program should nuclear sites be attacked.
These events highlight the threat from regional escalation dynamics posed by Iran’s near-threshold nuclear capability, which grants Iran the perception of a certain degree of deterrence—at least against direct US retaliation—while also serving as an understandably tempting target for Israeli attack. As tensions between Israel and Iran have moved away from their traditional proxy nature and manifested as direct strikes against each other’s territories, the urgency of finding a timely and non-military solution to the Iranian nuclear issue has increased.
A tempting target. While the current assessment is that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic maintains a very advanced nuclear program, allowing it to develop a nuclear weapons capability relatively rapidly, should it decide to do so. Iran’s “near-threshold” capability did not deter Israel from undertaking its recent attack. But Iran’s nuclear program is a tempting target for an attack that could have potentially destabilizing ramification: The program is advanced enough to pose a credible risk of rapid weaponization and at a stage when it could still be significantly degraded, albeit at an extremely high cost.
Iran views its nuclear program as a deterrent against direct US strikes on or invasion of its territory, acting as an insurance policy of sorts against invasion following erroneous Western accusations over its nuclear program, ala Iraq in 2003. That’s to say, during an attempted invasion, Iran could quickly produce nuclear weapons. This capability allows Iran’s leadership to engage in destabilizing activities in the region with a (perceived) limited likelihood of retaliation against its own territory. Concerns over escalation and a potential Iranian push toward weaponization of its nuclear program may have been one of multiple considerations that contributed to the US refusal to take part in Israeli retaliatory action following Iran’s April 13 strikes on Israel.
Israel sees the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat and has long sought its elimination. For this reason, reports that Israel might have been preparing to target Iranian nuclear sites as retaliation for Iran’s strikes against its territory came as little surprise. Israel’s attack on military installations near Iranian nuclear facilities—and against an air defense system that Iran has deployed to protect its nuclear sites—appears to have been calibrated precisely to make the point that Israel has the capability to directly attack heavily-protected nuclear sites deep inside Iran. Some commentators have speculated that subsequent strikes on Iranian nuclear sites may still be desirable or necessary.
In this context, Iran’s nuclear sites will continue to present a tempting target for Israel in any further escalation of the conflict between the two. Moreover, Israel may also conclude that its own undeclared nuclear capability has failed to act as a deterrent against two major assaults on its territory. The attacks by Hamas on October 7 and Iran on April 13 probably added to Israel’s sense of strategic vulnerability, although that perception may have been partly alleviated by the largely successful defense against Iran’s attempted drone and missile strikes.
Israel has historically targeted Iran’s nuclear program through relatively limited sabotage in the form of cyber-attacks, assassinations of scientists, and bombs placed at Iranian nuclear facilities. This strategy has allowed Israel to repeatedly roll the clock back on Iran’s nuclear progress while maintaining some level of credible deniability and avoiding further military escalation, therefore largely remaining within the “rules” established by Israel and Iran in conducting their shadow war. Now, with both countries openly striking each other’s territory, Israel may see this as an opportunity—or feel compelled—to target Iran’s nuclear facilities directly.
A range of bad options. The possibility of Iranian weaponization and Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites could lead to a serious escalation spiral and, potentially, a wider military conflict in the region……………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://thebulletin.org/2024/04/why-iran-may-accelerate-its-nuclear-program-and-israel-may-be-tempted-to-attack-it/
Thirty-eight years on, lessons from Chernobyl
DAVE SWEENEY, Australian Conservation Foundation, 26 April 24 https://www.acf.org.au/38-years-on-lessons-from-chernobyl
—
On 26 April 1986, an exercise at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine went badly wrong.
Operators lost control of the reactor unit and the cooling systems failed.
The rapid rise in pressure and heat caused a fire and an explosion that blew apart the reactor’s containment shield.
Uncontrolled radiation spewed from the plant and was carried in the smoke of the dark night sky over a swathe of eastern and western Europe, and far beyond.
Firefighters and emergency service responders were the first to fall.
They were followed by numerous ‘liquidators’ – army conscripts with scant training or safety gear – who were sent in to contain the contamination.
Tens of thousands of community members were relocated – some forcibly – from areas near the stricken reactor.
But greater distance did not neatly translate into lesser danger. The radiation plume was erratic and unpredictable, but always damaging.
Chernobyl starkly demonstrated that radiation does not respect political borders or need a passport to travel.
The last leader of the then Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, reflected that Chernobyl “was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later” and that the disaster “showed the horrible consequences of nuclear power, even when it is used for non-military purposes. One could now imagine much more clearly what might happen if a nuclear bomb exploded.”
Thirty-eight years later, adverse health, economic and environmental impacts persist. The Chernobyl complex remains a radioactive running sore, complicated by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
There has also been active fighting at Zaporizhzhia, Europe’s largest nuclear plant and a disturbingly frequent battleground between Russian and Ukrainian forces.
Earlier this month the director-general of the pro-nuclear International Atomic Energy Agency spoke of a “major escalation of the nuclear safety and security dangers facing the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant” and a significant increase in “the risk of a major nuclear accident.”
Whether by accident in 1986 or artillery in 2024, there is no question nuclear power is the world’s most easily weaponised energy system. Reactors have been described as pre-deployed terrorist targets.
On a good day nuclear power means high level radioactive waste. On a bad day Chernobyl. And the very bad day of nuclear weapons is the stuff of nightmares.
On the anniversary of Chernobyl and against a backdrop of deep global uncertainty and conflict, we need to heed the lessons of history and build a safer future.
US bases including Pine Gap saw Australia put on nuclear alert, but no-one told Gough Whitlam
“The Australian government takes the attitude that there should not be foreign military bases, stations, installations in Australia. We honour agreements covering existing stations. We do not favour the extension or prolongation of any of those existing ones.” – Gough Whitlam
ABC News, By Alex Barwick for the Expanse podcast Spies in the Outback, 25 Apr 24
During the 1972 election campaign, Gough Whitlam promised to uncover and share Pine Gap’s secrets with Australians.(ABC Archives/Nautilus Institute)
When Australia was placed on nuclear alert by the United States government in October 1973, there was one major problem.
No-one had told prime minister Gough Whitlam.
One of the locations placed on “red alert” was the secretive Pine Gap facility on the fringes of Alice Springs.
Officially called a “joint space research facility” until 1988, the intelligence facility was in the crosshairs with a handful of other US bases and installations around Australia.
In fact, almost all United States bases around the world were placed on alert as conflict escalated in the Middle East. Whitlam wasn’t the only leader left out of the loop.
A prime minister in the dark
“Whitlam got upset that he hadn’t been told in advance,” Brian Toohey, journalist and former Labor staffer to Whitlam’s defence minister Lance Barnard, said.
Toohey said Whitlam should have been told that facilities including North West Cape base in Western Australia, and Pine Gap were being put on “red alert”.
“There had been a new agreement knocked out by Australian officials with their American counterparts, that Australia would be given advance warning.”
They weren’t.
Suddenly, the world was on the brink of nuclear war.
Why were parts of Australia on ‘red alert’?
The Cold War superpowers backed opposing sides in the Yom Kippur War.
The Soviet Union supported Egypt and the United States was behind Israel.
As the proxy war escalated in October 1973, United States secretary of state Henry Kissinger believed the crisis could go nuclear and issued a DefCon 3 alert.
A DefCon 3 alert saw immediate preparations to ensure the United States could mobilise in 15 minutes to deliver a nuclear strike.
The aim was to deter a nuclear strike by the Soviets.
And, it simultaneously alerted all US bases including facilities in Australia that a nuclear threat was real.
This level of alert has only occurred a few times, including immediately after the September 11 attacks.
Politics, pressure and protest
The secretive intelligence facility in outback Australia caused Whitlam more trouble beyond the red alert.
During the 1972 election campaign, the progressive politician had promised to lift the lid on Pine Gap and share its secrets with all Australians.
“He gave a promise that he would tell the Australian public a lot more about what Pine Gap did,” Toohey said.
But according to Toohey, the initial briefing provided to Whitlam and Barnard by defence chief Arthur Tange left the prime minister with little to say.
“Tange came along and he said basically that there was nothing they could be allowed to say. And that was just ridiculous,” Toohey said.
“He said, the one thing he could tell them was the bases could not be used in any way to participate in a war. Well, of course they do.”
Whitlam would cause alarm in Washington when he refused to commit to extending Pine Gap’s future.
In 1974 on the floor of parliament he said:
“The Australian government takes the attitude that there should not be foreign military bases, stations, installations in Australia. We honour agreements covering existing stations. We do not favour the extension or prolongation of any of those existing ones.”
According to Toohey, “the Americans were incredibly alarmed about that”.
“As contingency planning, the whole of the US Defence Department said that they would shift it to Guam, a Pacific island that America owned,” he said.
And the following year, allegations would emerge that the CIA were involved in the prime minister’s dismissal on November 11, 1975…………… https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-24/when-australia-was-put-on-nuclear-alert-expanse-podcast/103733194
National Party threatens to tear up wind and solar contracts as nuclear misinformation swings polls
The campaign against renewables and for nuclear has been based around misinformation, both on the cost and plans of renewables and transmission, and on the cost of nuclear power plants, which have stalled around the world because of soaring costs, huge delays, and because no small modular reactor has yet been licensed in the western world.
That campaign has been amplified by right wing “think tanks” and ginger groups, and the Murdoch media, and largely reported uncritically in other mainstream media. It appears to be having some traction.
Giles Parkinson, Apr 23, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nationals-threaten-to-tear-up-wind-and-solar-contracts-as-nuclear-misinformation-swings-polls/
National leader David Littleproud has threatened to tear up contracts for wind and solar farm developments, in the latest broadside against large scale renewable energy from the federal Coalition.
The remarks – reported by the Newcastle Herald and later verified by Renew Economy via a transcript – were made in a press conference last week in Newcastle, when Littleproud was campaigning against offshore wind projects and outlining the Coalition’s hope that it could build a nuclear power plant in the upper Hunter Valley.
The Coalition has vowed to stop the roll out of large scale renewables, and keep coal fired power plants open in the hope that they can build nuclear power plants – recognised around the world as the most expensive power technology on the planet – some time in the late 2030s and 2040s.
No one in the energy industry, nor large energy consumers for that matter, are the slightest bit interested in nuclear because of its huge costs and time it takes to build, and because it would set back Australia’s short term emissions reductions.
But the comments about contracts are the most sinister to date, and reflect the determination of a party leader who just a few years ago described renewables and storage as a “good thing”, including the huge wind and solar projects that are being built in his own electorate, to destroy the renewables industry.
The Newcastle Herald asked Littleproud if an incoming Coalition government would consider “tearing up contracts” for renewable infrastructure contracts that had already been signed.
“Well exactly,” Littleproud said. “We will look at where the existing government took contracts and at what stage they are at.
“There are some projects on land that we will have to accept, but we are not going to just let these things happen. If that means we have to pay out part of the contracts, and we will definitely look at that. You’re not going to sit here and say today that we’re stopping it and then not following through.”
The federal government this week announced the biggest ever auction of wind and solar in Australia, seeking six gigawatts of new capacity that will be underwritten by contracts written by the commonwealth.
This will see at least 2.2 GW of new wind and solar sourced in NSW, at least 300 MW in South Australia, already the country’s leader with a 75 per cent share of wind and solar in its grid, and multiple gigawatts spread over other states.
However, the Coalition’s nuclear plans are already facing delays, having pulled back from a previous commitment to deliver the nuclear policy before the May 14 federal budget. It now only promises to release the policy before the next election, with Littleproud telling Sky News on Monday that the party “would not be bullied” into an early release.
One of the many problems with its nuclear strategy will be finding sites for the proposed power plants. The Coalition has targeted the upper Hunter as one site, but AGL, the owner of the site that houses the now closed Liddell and the still operating Bayswater coal generators, has said it is not interested because it is focused on renewables and storage.
Littlepround, however, said there are other sites in the area that could be used, although the Newcastle Herald said he declined to nominate those sites. Inevitably, they would require new infrastructure.
The campaign against renewables and for nuclear has been based around misinformation, both on the cost and plans of renewables and transmission, and on the cost of nuclear power plants, which have stalled around the world because of soaring costs, huge delays, and because no small modular reactor has yet been licensed in the western world.
That campaign has been amplified by right wing “think tanks” and ginger groups, and the Murdoch media, and largely reported uncritically in other mainstream media. It appears to be having some traction.
According to an Essential Media poll published in The Guardian on Tuesday, 40 per cent of respondents ranked renewables as the most expensive form of electricity, 36 per cent said nuclear, and 24 per cent said fossil fuels.
The poll also found a majority (52%) of voters supported developing nuclear power for the generation of electricity, up two points since October 2023, and 31% opposed it, down two points.
The most recent GenCost report prepared by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator, like other international studies, says that nuclear power costs nearly three times more than renewables, even counting the cost of storage and transmissions.
However, the Coalition – with the support of right wind media and agitators – have led relentless campaigns against the CSIRO and AEMO, even though their nuclear costs were based on the only SMR technology that has gotten close to construction, before being pulled because it was too expensive.
The push to stop renewables comes despite reports from both AEMO and the Australian Energy Regulator that highlight how the growth in renewables has lowered wholesale power prices, despite extreme weather events and the impact of the unexpected outage of Victoria’s biggest coal generator.
The only state where wholesale electricity prices actually rose were in Queensland, which has the heaviest dependency on coal, although the state has just passed laws that lock in its 75 per cent emissions reduction target and its 80 per cent renewables target by 2030.
South Australia has already reached a 75 per cent wind and solar generation share in its grid, and aims to reach “net” 100 per cent by the end of 2027. It enjoyed the biggest fall in wholesale spot prices in the last quarter, which state minister Tom Koutsantonis said should be passed on to consumers.
“SA’s prices fell the most of any state, and the black coal dependent states of Queensland and NSW had the highest prices,” Koutsantonis said.
“These proven falls in wholesale prices are encouraging signs that we are on the right track. South Australia’s high proportion of renewables – which exceeded 75 per cent of generation in 2023 – is key to South Australian prices being far lower than the black-coal states of NSW and Queensland.
“Retail prices must fall because wholesale costs to retailers are going down.”
Biden signs $95bn aid bill to be sent ‘right away’ – for wars in Ukraine, Israel, and provocations in Taiwan
SOTT – Signs of the Times, BBC, Wed, 24 Apr 2024
US President Joe Biden has signed a $95bn (£76bn) package of aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
“It’s going to make America safer, it’s going to make the world safer,” he said after signing the bill into law.
The president said the US would “right away” send fresh weapons and equipment to Ukraine to help Kyiv fend off Russian advances.
Comment: The West has depleted much of its weapon stocks, so much of the money is to go to US weapons manufacturers to actually make the weapons, first.
He spoke a day after the US Senate approved the aid package following months of congressional gridlock.
Ukraine has recently stepped up its calls for Western assistance as Russia makes steady gains in its invasion.
Included in the package is $61bn in military aid for Ukraine. It passed the Senate in a bipartisan vote of 79-18.
Tuesday evening’s approval came after the measurepassed the US House of Representativeson Saturday.
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said: “After more than six months of hard work and many twists and turns in the road, America sends a message to the entire world: we will not turn our back on you.”
Comment: They will, however, turn their backs on their own citizens.
Reacting to the vote, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said it “reinforces America’s role as a beacon of democracy and leader of the free world”.
The Senate passed a similar aid package in February, but a group of conservatives who oppose new Ukraine support had prevented it from coming to a vote in the House of Representatives.
Last week, Democrats and Republicans in the lower chamber joined together to bypass this opposition.
They ultimately agreed to a package bill that included the foreign aid as well as legislation to confiscate Russian assets held by Western banks; new sanctions on Russia, Iran and China; and a provision that will force the Chinese company ByteDance to sell the popular social media service TikTok.
Comment: The theft of Russian assets will backfire, both with Russia’s retaliation, and global investors who will be reluctant to operate in the US; as will the sanctions; and the control of TikTok only further serves as proof of America as a surveillance state
In the House on Saturday, a majority of Republicans in the chamber voted against the foreign aid package.
The bill also faced resistance among a handful of Senate Republicans who opposed any new aid to Ukraine.
Fifteen voted with two Democrats – as well as independent Senator Bernie Sanders who objected to providing new offensive weapons to Israel – against the bill.
“Pouring more money into Ukraine’s coffers will only prolong the conflict and lead to more loss of life,” Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville said in remarks on Tuesday.
“No-one at the White House, the Pentagon, or the state department can articulate what victory looks like in this fight.”
The aid package is expected to provide a significant boost to Ukraine’s forces, which have suffered from a shortage of ammunition and air defence systems in recent months.
On Tuesday, Ukraine’s second city, Kharkiv, faced the latest in a series of recent drone and missile strikes, with authorities saying two people in a residential neighbourhood were injured.
The commander of Ukraine’s National Guard, Oleksandr Pivnenko, said he was expecting an attempt by Russian forces to advance on the city, which is near the Russian border.
Between February 2022 and January 2024, the US gave Ukraine more than $40bn in military aid, according to German research organisation, the Kiel Institute.
Comment: The EU has allocated 50 Billion euros of taxpayers money.
Aid for Israel and Taiwan
The foreign aid package passed on Tuesday also allocates $17bn to Israel, as well as $9bn for civilians suffering in conflict zones around the world, including Palestinians in Gaza.
Comment: So $17 billion to wage genocide, less than a few billion for those suffering from it?
Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz reacted to the vote by thanking congressional leaders for their “unwavering commitment to Israel’s security”.
“Israel and the United States stand together in the fight against terrorism, defending democracy and our shared values,” he said.
The US already provides Israel with $3.8bn in military aid each year.
Over in Asia, a Chinese government spokeswoman called the military aid for Taiwan a “serious violation of the one-China principle” that would “send the wrong signal to the pro-independence separatist forces” in Taiwan.
“We urge the US to take practical actions to fulfil its commitment not to support Taiwan independence by not arming Taiwan in any way,” she said.
Taiwan’s incoming President William Lai said the aid package would “strengthen deterrence against authoritarianism”.
Taiwan is a self-governing island and considers itself distinct from China, but Beijing views it as a breakaway province and hopes to bring it back under its own control.
TikTok ban
The national security package also includes a provision that could lead to a nationwide ban on TikTok………………….. more https://www.sott.net/article/490878-Biden-signs-95bn-aid-bill-to-be-sent-right-away-for-wars-in-Ukraine-Israel-and-provocations-in-Taiwan
UN report demolishes Israeli propaganda campaign against UNRWA
Israel has waged a multi-year campaign against the UN aid group for Palestinian refugees in hopes of eradicating the right of return
The Cradle, News Desk, APR 22, 2024
Israel has failed to provide any evidence of its claims that employees of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) are members of “terrorist organizations,” according to an independent review led by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna.
In January, Israel claimed without evidence that some UNRWA staff – until then the primary conduit of humanitarian aid into the besieged and bombed Gaza Strip – were members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and had participated in the Hamas-led attack on Israeli military bases and settlements on 7 October, known as Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
The Israeli allegations promptly caused the US and other western nations to cut funding to UNRWA. This came amid reports from rights groups that Israel was using starvation as a weapon against the 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza.
The Guardian reported on 22 April that the “Colonna report,” which was commissioned by the UN in the wake of Israeli allegations, found that UNRWA had regularly supplied Israel with lists of its employees for vetting, and that “the Israeli government has not informed UNRWA of any concerns relating to any UNRWA staff based on these staff lists since 2011.”
The Guardian added that most donor nations have resumed their funding in recent weeks. However, UK ministers had said they would wait for the Colonna report to decide whether to resume funding. The US Congress has since banned any future financial support of UNRWA.
The Colonna review was drafted with the help of three Nordic research institutes and will be published later on Monday.
It confirms that Israel has yet to provide any evidence of its claims………………………………………………..
more https://thecradle.co/articles/un-report-demolishes-israeli-propaganda-campaign-against-unrwa
Nuclear: In Flamanville, the EPR farce continues
During a meeting of the local information commission on April 12, the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) assured that it could give the green light to the start-up of the reactor by the beginning of May. However, not all technical problems are resolved. And now a new one – of vibrations – appeared at the end of last year on the primary circuit. Revelations.
Blast, Thierry Gadault , 22 Apr 24
A few kilometers from the Flamanville nuclear power plant, Les Pieux (Manche) is typical of the many nuclear communities that we cross along the Rhône and Loire valleys: stone facades scrubbed with a toothbrush, paved sidewalks shiny as a new penny, innumerable municipal facilities that a town of some 3,500 inhabitants could never hope to afford, even in its wildest dreams, if it were not for the millions poured every year by EDF into the Department………………………..
Dialogue of the deaf in the basement
Behind the town hall, an old mansion which dominates the village, is the Pieux proximity center. In the basement of the building, which houses part of the municipal services, an auditorium with around fifty seats hosts the meetings of the Local Information Commission (CLI), a consultative body bringing together EDF, the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), local elected officials, the State and association representatives.
April 12, 2024, there was a crowd for the extraordinary meeting of the CLI. The menu was potentially copious: it was a question of taking stock of the EPR, before the ASN gave the green light to EDF to install the nuclear fuel in the vessel. While the independent authority was in full public consultation (it ended on April 17), an essential prerequisite for its decision-making, the associations had obtained this appointment in the form of a last-chance meeting, to try to derail the process.
But neither the ASN representative, Gaëtan Lafforge, the head of the Caen division, nor that of EDF, Alain Morvan, the director of the Flamanville EPR project, had the intention of revealing the reality of the numerous problems which still affect the reactor. And it was a dialogue of the deaf that the participants engaged in.
On the ASN and EDF side, the speech can easily be summarized: officially, everything is in order and the objective is now to gradually bring the reactor to operate at full power, at the end of the year. The authority also specified that the green light will be given by the beginning of May. Alain Morvan, with slides reduced to the strict minimum, simply outlined the process of starting up the new reactor.
On April 12, questioned on this subject by Yannick Rousselet, nuclear safety consultant at Greenpeace, the ASN representative had the greatest difficulty in answering the question clearly. “I can’t tell you that there won’t be anything left, there could be possible deviations during the tests,” stammered Gaëtan Lafforge. This then led to a short lunar exchange with the anti-nuclear activist, which triggered laughter from the audience.
On the anti-nuclear activist side, the troops left after two hours with their questions. In particular, lo and behold, a new vibration problem on the primary circuit detected last year.
The information was given to Blast by Julien Collet, the deputy director general of ASN, during the authority’s annual press conference organized at the end of last January. The DGA then told us that EDF was in the process of investigating this umpteenth glitch on the EPR.
On April 12, questioned on this subject by Yannick Rousselet, nuclear safety consultant at Greenpeace, the ASN representative had the greatest difficulty in answering the question clearly. “I can’t tell you that there won’t be anything left, there could be possible deviations during the tests,” stammered Gaëtan Lafforge. This then led to a short lunar exchange with the anti-nuclear activist, which triggered laughter from the audience.
Strangely, Alain Morvan, who could have provided technical details, remained silent. And no one thought to give him the floor. Especially since the president of the CLI, perhaps impatient to go to lunch, hastened to close the session. Questioned by Blast after the meeting, the director of the EPR project, cornered by a member of EDF communications, refused to answer us.
Hardly any more luck with the Parisian communications department, a few moments later. “The vibrational issues have been dealt with and technical solutions put in place,” she simply responded in the usual wooden language. In short, move around, there is nothing to see.
Yes, but here it is: questioned by a journalist from Presse de la Manche, the local daily which covered the event, EDF gave another answer : “There is no new vibration subject,” said the electrician. to our colleague. Um… we should know: has the subject been covered or does it not exist?
It’s not me, it’s him !
To try to see things clearly, Blast turned to the Institute of Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), the public research establishment which provides technical advice to the ASN.
Perhaps concerned about its future – following the merger with the ASN imposed by the government and ratified by the National Assembly and the Senate – the establishment informed us through its press manager that the subject was not his responsibility. And to send us back to the ASN…
Unfortunately, ASN did not answer our questions. As Martine Aubry, the mayor of Lille and former candidate defeated in the 2011 socialist primary, said about François Hollande, “when it’s vague, there’s a wolf…”
The lid saga
This new problem… sorry “subject” vibration is therefore added to the numerous unresolved technical files that EDF has decided to leave as is, with the agreement of the ASN, to provide a response only after the commissioning of the reactor – it is unusual, we will agree. Starting obviously with the lid of the tank, weakened by a manufacturing defect (positive carbon segregation also present in the bottom of the tank). When the authority finally authorized the use of the tank and its lid in 2018, when it was no longer possible to exclude the risk of rupture but only to prevent it (which does not have the same meaning), she had asked EDF to change the cover no later than December 2024.
……………………………………..Questioned by activists to know why the company was not waiting for this new cover, Alain Morvan got confused in his explanations. He first suggested that it was not finished, and that it would therefore not be installed before the summer of 2025, before contradicting himself to finally assure that it would be delivered to the nuclear power plant at the end of the year…
In fact, the public group has nothing to do with it: in 2023, Framatome obtained from the ASN to postpone the replacement of the cover by one year, without giving any justification for such a postponement. According to the order issued by the authority last year, it must now be replaced during the first full inspection of the installation, after its start-up.
While it was possible to change this part in complete safety for the health of workers, if the new one had been installed before start-up, this postponement changes everything. The current cover will be irradiated and it will in fact become nuclear waste. In other words, an object that cannot be handled like that.
Apart from the fact that this unnecessarily exposes workers to taking doses during operations to replace it, this poses another problem. This question has not been resolved to date by EDF: that of the storage of this contaminated part, when it is removed. ASN asked the EDF group to construct a building for this purpose which would allow it to be stored safely on the power plant site. Which still doesn’t seem to be done…
Radioactivity, haphazardly
Emblematic, the tank cover file is not the only one which demonstrates EDF’s lack of consideration for nuclear employees, whether they are in-house agents or subcontracting employees. A second major project, also planned after the start-up of the reactor, will expose those involved to radioactive risks. Here again, this intervention could have been carried out in complete safety before the installation was started: the modification of the cooling system of the reactor auxiliary networks (RRI) and rescued raw water (SEC). Essential elements, particularly during reactor shutdown…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Later, again
Still in the same logic, EDF has postponed the modification of the tank internals until later, more precisely the lower plenum which directs the distribution of the hydraulic flow in the tank. Since the incident that occurred on one of the two EPRs at Taishan in China, in 2021, we have had some feedback: it has been established that this equipment generates poor distribution of hydraulic flow which causes greater fluctuations. greater than expected in the neutron flux, which could lead to difficulties in controlling the nuclear reaction. Although ASN asked EDF to modify the lower plenum, the studies are still in progress………………………………………………………….
In China, to avoid major problems while waiting for the modification of the lower plenum, the power of the reactors (officially 1,750 MW) would have been limited to 1,500 MW. Will this also be the case for the Flamanville EPR? Questioned during the CLI meeting on April 12 by Yannick Rousselet, neither ASN nor EDF deigned to respond.
Let’s cross our fingers, hoping that there will be no runaway nuclear reaction in the Flamanville EPR tank. Especially since Libération revealed in July 2022, two systems of probes and sensors essential for operating the reactor, installed either in the tank or outside, are malfunctioning.
The EPR, political totem
“It would have been smarter to do all this work before the reactor was started,” exasperates Gilles Reynaud, the president of Ma Zone Contrôlée , which brings together nuclear subcontracting employees. But EDF wants to put the EPR into production to say: “that’s it, it works.” Doing all this work afterwards, I don’t find it very respectful for the workers and the population. »
No matter the cost
“We are starting at all costs for purely political reasons,” judge Yannick Rousselet, interviewed by Blast at the end of the CLI on April 12. As President Macron announced the relaunch of nuclear power with the construction of new EPRs, they want to send the message that we are out of the rut. » For Rousselet, this is a very short-term vision: “Even if this reactor shuts down in a few months for a long period, no one cares. We must be able to say: “That’s it, the Flamanville EPR is loaded. He started.” This is what is most dangerous. We don’t try to solve the problems first. »
The secrets of an engineer
And then, potentially, there is another problem in the medium term. Recently, an engineer, Thierry C, contacted Blast to tell us about his short experience in nuclear power.
………………………………. “When I took the file, I quickly realized that most of the valves that had to be installed could not meet the temperature and pressure conditions planned during these requalification tests,” he explains to Blast. Of the approximately 650 pipes equipped with valves, there were approximately 450 that had to be cut to remove the equipment and replace it with a temporary device to block the pipes. » A not really reassuring observation. “I spoke about it to my superiors who asked me to keep quiet and not talk to EDF about it. »
The documents and plans consulted by Blast seem to confirm these remarks. Which poses a problem: the requalification tests must be carried out with the valves to be validated. However, this analysis work was carried out in 2008-2009, when the EPR construction site, which had just started, was still in the civil engineering stage. Thierry C. left the group shortly after carrying out this study. What has happened since then? Has the error made by Alstom on the technical characteristics of the valves been corrected? Impossible to know: neither EDF, nor ASN, nor IRSN wanted to answer us.
Overall, given these unresolved problems and the lack of transparency from EDF and ASN regarding the technical setbacks of the installation, within the Flamanville CLI but also vis-à-vis the press, the long nightmare of the EPR construction site may not be over. This bad dream led to its bill exploding – which reached some 19.1 billion euros . A farce that could end up boring and no longer make anyone laugh. https://www.blast-info.fr/articles/2024/nucleaire-a-flamanville-la-farce-de-lepr-se-poursuit-G9PeKawaRwmShmxp6sJL3g
TODAY. Saint Rafael Grossi on the road to Damascus.
On the road to Damascus is where you get an epiphany. Well, Saint Paul did, anyway. He was on his way to Damascus to do punishing stuff to Christians, when he had a divine revelation and was transformed into an apostle, all aglow with Christian love.
Well, I don’t know that Rafael Grossi had any such revelation, in going to Damascus. But it seems clear that he decided that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is really nothing to worry about, certainly not when compared with the mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is to promote the nuclear industry.
We always knew that countries that get nuclear weapons first get a “civil” nuclear industry. Except for the USA, which started the whole thing off the other way around, with the atrocity of the bombs for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They then launched enthusiastically into the hypocrisy of the “peaceful nuke.
Britain’s leader Rishi Sunak, and France’s Emmanuel Macron have both publicly made it clear that “commercial” nuclear power is essential for their nuclear weapons industry. (So it doesn’t matter if commercial nuclear is a financial catastrophe.) The USA and Russia don’t seem to care, as long as they can sell all kinds of nuclear technology to anybody, really.
The new “advanced” small nuclear reactors make the problem worse, as they use enriched uranium, and reprocessing technologies that provide a great cover for making weapons grade fuel .
Rafael Grossi is well known for his earnest and pious statements about nuclear safety. Indeed, didn’t we all think that this is his job, to ensure the safety and non-weapons-proliferation of the world’s reactors?
But when did Rafael’s epiphany happen? When did he realise that safety and non-weapons proliferation did not matter now?
Rafael doesn’t seem to understand that all nuclear facilities become a target for terrorism, and a target in war-time. He has said a few cautionary words about the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in Ukraine, but he’s quite OK with Ukraine setting up new nuclear power stations.
Rafael has expressed worthy worries about Saudi Arabia and nuclear weapons, but nevertheless “expressed his delight and admiration for Saudi Arabia’s nuclear capabilities” – and promoted them .
Syria is a place, and with a leader, prone to military disruptions, and , like Saudi Arabia, to human rights abuses, but that doesn’t seem to worry Grossi, over there to arrange for a Syrian nuclear industry.
An epiphany? Or did Rafael know all the time that his job is to be a nuclear salesman ?
Blatant hypocrisy
1.This month.
The video on Palestine that got Yanis Varoufakis BANNED from Germany
Keep U.S. military expansion out of Australia
Petition EN5543 – Call for termination of the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement
Antinuclear 