No nuclear power ‘renaissance’ as Europe wrestles energy crisis

“Most efforts right now are based on developing renewables, that’s what you can see in the European strategy in response to the Russian crisis,” “Nuclear is still not a shared solution in Europe.”

Russian invasion of Ukraine sparks incremental shifts in divisive issue, but no major pivot seven months into fighting.

Aljazeera, By Joseph Stepansky 6 Oct 20226

Nuclear power, and the heavy safety baggage it carries, has long divided European opinion, with individual countries charting vastly divergent paths on the industry’s role in future energy sustainability and security plans.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has again brought the atomic question to the fore, as nations scrambled for short-term solutions before winter sets in, as well as longer-term safeguards, to avoid similar energy upheavals in the years ahead.

But after eight months of fighting in Ukraine, and an energy crisis compounded most recently by the alleged sabotage of the arterial Nord Stream 1 and 2 Russia-to-Europe pipelines in the Baltic Sea, European governments long opposed to nuclear power have shown only incremental shifts in their attitudes, which have been informed by years of concerns about nuclear waste and safety.

A wider pivot has remained absent…………………..

Mark Hibbs, a Germany-based non-resident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “I don’t see a major [nuclear power] watershed from what’s happening in Ukraine.”

Instead, the situation has reinforced some trends among countries already bought into nuclear energy, he said, while slowing some opponents’ phase-outs of the technology.

Europe’s nuclear hesitancy

Opposition to nuclear power, coupled with other factors, has created a 25 percent overall decline in electricity produced by splitting atoms in the 27-country European Union from 2006 to 2020, according to the bloc’s executive wing, the European Commission.

By 2020, the EU produced 24 percent of the bloc’s overall electricity from nuclear plants, with 13 countries operating nuclear reactors: France, Belgium, Germany, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

Countries that already have nuclear power capacity, according to Hibbs, are likely to face the greatest demands in light of the conflict in Ukraine, particularly as typically 30- to 40-year power plant licences begin to expire.

“There will be pressure on European governments and industry to continue operating their nuclear power plants,” he said, adding that pressure will grow as the conflict stretches on…………………………………….

More recently, Greenpeace, an organisation that has long opposed nuclear power, has pointed to fighting around the Russian-seized Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine as an example of the ever-present danger of relying on nuclear as an energy source.

Denmark, Ireland and Serbia, countries that do not have nuclear power industries, have longstanding bans on developing the technology. Others, such as Greece, have avoided the technology for fear of natural disasters……………………………………………………………………………………..

No short-term solutions

Still, a more immediate pivot has been widely constrained by the reality that nuclear power’s ability to address Europe’s short-term energy challenges is “fairly limited”, according to Cobb.

“And the reason for that is, in most countries, nuclear operates in a baseload mode. So, it is already the case that nuclear plants tend to operate full-time,” he said. “They’re not like gas plants that operate at a peaking load, producing electricity, when demand is at the highest. They’re always operating”.

Meanwhile, developing new nuclear facilities remains a daunting, costly and years-long ambition, with a high barrier of entry, IDDRI’s Berghmans said.

“It’s a complex industry,” he said. “You need big infrastructure. You need to plan where you can put these facilities. You need nuclear know-how, which is not as widespread as it used to be in Europe.”

Proponents of new generation small modular reactors (SMRs), which can be built off-site and transported, have said the new technology could offer more efficient and cheaper development, although the plants are still years away from operating and have raised their own unique safety concerns.

And while nuclear power analysts have said the nuclear supply chain is generally more stable and easier to reroute than that of many fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, it does not come without its own Russia problems.

In 2020, EU utilities imported about 20 percent of their natural uranium, the fundamental resource needed to produce nuclear energy, from Russia. The bloc also received 26 percent of its enrichment services, the required process of altering uranium’s makeup before it can be used to create energy, from Russia, according to the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine also currently operate Russian-made nuclear reactors, raising questions about their long-term needs for specific Russian-made parts and services, according to an analysis by Matt Bowen and Paul Dabbar of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

To date, Russia’s nuclear industry has broadly escaped Western sanctions.

Recent outages at French power plants, because of maintenance, corrosion problems and heat stresses, have also reinforced longstanding hesitancy towards nuclear power, according to Carole Nakhle, the founder of the Crystol Energy consulting organisation.

“Mind you, one of the problems that the EU faced that made the current crisis even worse were the nuclear outages in France,” she told Al Jazeera. “France, which usually exports electricity, had to import this year because its power plants couldn’t keep up.”

Given the myriad challenges that continue to surround nuclear, governments are more likely to see renewable energies, such as wind and photovoltaic energy, as “more economical” alternatives to energy security and sustainability, according to Berghmans.

“Most efforts right now are based on developing renewables, that’s what you can see in the European strategy in response to the Russian crisis,” he said. “Nuclear is still not a shared solution in Europe.”

 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/6/europe-sees-shift-in-attitudes-no-nuclear-power—

October 8, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

October 7 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “Michigan Has Potential To Reduce Emissions By Over 94%” • The 2030 Report: How Michigan Should Meet Its Climate Change Goals outlines the most feasible and ambitious set of policies that would help Michigan reduce health-harming pollution and greenhouse gases while putting the state on a strong path for meeting its climate goals. […]

October 7 Energy News — geoharvey

October 8, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NextEra Energy finds that small nuclear reactors (SMRs) really are the biggest boondoggle of all

 There were a couple of interesting developments in June in regards to electric power. One was that NextEra Energy issued its Investor Conference Report 2022 to its stockholders. Another was a paper from Stanford University, “Low-cost solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy insecurity for 145 countries,” (LCS study) by Mark Z. Jacobson, et al. Looking into them is rather interesting.

The first of these makes very clear that in the opinions of the people running NextEra Energy, combustion
generating sources and nuclear power are getting too expensive. Furthermore, their opinion is that the most expensive of these, at least in the late 2020s, will be small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).

We should make clear, just in case anyone doesn’t know, that NextEra is hardly anti-nuclear. While it is already the biggest investor in renewable energy in the US, it does own seven nuclear reactors, including the one at Seabrook. Electricity from new, near-firm solar and wind plants is a good deal less expensive than electricity from existing nuclear plants.

Let’s state this clearly: We are paying extra for electricity from nuclear plants, even after they have been paid down, and even though the sun can shine and the wind can blow almost all the time, because of really cheap battery storage. Put another way, it would be cheaper to close the nuclear plants and replace them with new renewable facilities.

 Clean Technica 4th Oct 2022 https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/04/why-should-we-pay-extra-for-nuclear-power/

October 6, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why We Need To Teach Nuclear War

Thoughtful teachers must be willing to educate their students slowly and honestly about the history of our nuclear past.

 https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/09/27/why-we-need-teach-nuclear-war BRIAN GIBBS, September 27, 2022,

We do not teach nuclear war, but we need to.

Make no mistake, the invasion of Ukraine is a nuclear-fueled conflict and students are ill-prepared to understand it. We need to be clear about this. Any military intervention by a nuclear power is a nuclear conflict. Russia threatened a nuclear retaliation if the United States became directly involved in the invasion of Ukraine; Sweden and Norway have asked for and been granted entrance into NATO placing increased pressure on Russia; and the New York Times reported that Russia is advancing on a nuclear reactor in Ukraine. It is a nuclear conflict.

The horror of nuclear war, an analysis of a country’s nuclear strategies and policies, not the immediate and active resistance to the creation, positioning and use of nuclear weapons is taught. Content standards, guidelines and textbooks discuss nuclear weapons little if at all. They typically describe the dropping of the two atomic bombs framing them as the only reasonable conclusion to World War II. Students have little background and understanding of nuclear weapons, their proliferation, or how they are used as threat and bargaining chip in every conflict and war since their introduction to the field of combat. During recent interviews several students indicated they were shocked when North Korea’s leader Kim Jung Un indicated that he was going to hit Guam with a missile strike. They had an assumption that nuclear strike capabilities were something from a time long ago. 

Students were also disturbed when President Trump threatened North Korea with total annihilation from a U.S. missile strike. The students shared that they had a vague sense that other countries had nuclear weapons but indicated that they only time nuclear weaponry, tactics, or strategy were shared was as part of a short lesson focused on the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Several students indicated that they were confused as they had thought there was only one atomic bomb dropped not two. 

Though it may not seem like it, the teaching of war is a controversial topic in American classrooms. This is shocking as it is overwhelmingly the main topic in social studies standards, curriculum, and testing. War is often taught as something which occurred, is over, as something bad but necessary and is too often taught as parables of heroics by reluctant Americans. Little time is typically spent on the messy beginnings and endings of wars, examining the morality of them, or discussing the choices and decisions made by leaders and soldiers, and even more rarely, the actions of the always present anti-war movements. As the students suggested, nuclear war is taught even less. Often in a one-day lesson on the actions of the Enola Gay and Boxcar, the planes that dropped the two bombs or as background, almost a white noise to briefly learning about the Cold War.

There are several reasons for this. Teachers report feeling lack of support in the teaching of complex things. Teachers indicate that they feel enormous community pressure to not teach a more thorough, honest, and critical examination of war. Some teachers say that to critique a war in the past is to critique a war in the present and the soldiers involved. If they do this, they fear accusations of indoctrination and anti-American sentiment. This is mostly from more conservative ideological and political spaces, but teachers also report feeling a different form of pressure from schools situated in more left-leaning spaces. These parents do not want their children exposed to the horror of war even in high school. They seem to fear this examination of historical reality could damage or traumatize their children. This pressure to fail to offer robust examinations became ever more exacerbated during the polarization and America First approach of the Trump administration. Things which had not been seen as controversial have become controversial. As Diana Hess has pointed out (2009) things are not controversial on their own, but rather they become controversial because of time and community context and community interpretation of the issues.

Some if not much of our history is disturbing. This is particularly true of war. Much of the anti-Critical Race Theory legislation passing through state legislatures makes the argument that no student should be made to feel bad while learning history or studying literature. This is impossible without shading or obfuscating the truth or just outright lying to children. An authentic examination of our past will lead to students feeling things, likely bad over the enormity of what has been done. In the hands of thoughtful, capable teachers’ students can experience history honestly, have time to thoughtfully discuss, examine documents, and investigate, thinking about what happened and what could have happened. Also understanding that there has been and always will be resistance to the use of and expansion of nuclear weapons. 

Fear of traumatizing students is a concern surfaced by teachers who choose to not teach honestly. This is a legitimate concern. With the rise of our awareness and understanding of trauma and generational trauma and how it affects our youth teachers are right to be concerned. Too often, this concern leads to avoidance which in turn leads to not teaching necessary topics. If we want our children to grow into strong participants in our democracy and thoughtful stewards of our world students need to be made aware of the world-ending disaster that could be just around the corner. As the Los Angeles Times reported American weaponry has been given to Ukraine under the rules that it be used to repel Russian forces in Ukraine, but not to attack Russian forces on Russian soil. The reason for this is clear. Use of American equipment in attacks on Russia would be seen by Russa as aggressive acts directly supported by the United States. Which could in turn lead to direct military involvement in the war by the United States. Though nuclear missiles might not be used if this conflict were to occur it would absolutely be a nuclear war. 

Any conflict or military action by a nuclear power has the potential to quickly escalate and spiral into a nuclear conflict. Our children do not understand this fully and they will not understand it if we continue to avoid the topic. The only way to prevent this is for thoughtful teachers to educate their students slowly and honestly about the history of our nuclear past, including our use of the atomic bombs at the end of World War II. The alienation between the United States and the Soviet Union in the post-War World II era must be studied. So must the history of atomic weapons and the development of more advanced systems that continues to this day.

Students need to understand the aging and deteriorating state of the missiles and safety measures the United States and Russia have and the consequence of an accidental launch. Likewise, students need to understand the litany of nuclear treaties, non-proliferation pacts, and the deep history of citizen resistance groups that have and continue to resist the possession, testing of, and continued development of nuclear weapons. This knowledge, this understanding, when taught well, over time, through discussion and inquiry, in the hands of a thoughtful teacher can help empower rather than overwhelm students. Knowledge and understanding help dispel feelings of fear, more importantly it can help students at a young age begin to develop ways out and solutions for a more peaceful world. 

The mission of most schools includes the creation of active and engaged humans prepared to help guide and change the world. This is as it should be. Part of this is honest and authentic examinations of our past and possible futures. This will allow students to develop into thoughtful adults who can make educated decisions about warfare, foreign policy, and nuclear war. It is absolutely necessary.

October 6, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Kerr McGee: Is the thorium danger over?

“These things have a half life of 14 million years,”

To Kerr McGee, “You need to pay up. We need reparations for all the people who are suffering from chronic illnesses that you caused,”

When will West Chicago finally be clear of thorium radiation?

 https://wildcatchronicle.org/10131/news/kerr-mcgee-is-the-danger-over/ By Savannah Epperson, Reporter, October 5, 2022

As the recent piles of dirt indicate, Kerr-McGee clean-up is set to start this fall. The final stage of thorium removal along Ann St. and W. Blair St. in West Chicago involves remediating the groundwater using 36 million dollars in funds allocated for the clean-up. 

On Aug. 24, the City of West Chicago published a press release concerning the site, indicating it was preparing for a “future park” at the location. That press release has since been removed. A member of the West Chicago City administration reached out, however. The city is planning on creating a park in the former Kerr-McGee lot in a few years.

“To get ready for this, the city will hire a park planning consultant. The planning will take a few months and include a significant amount of public input,” said Tom Dabareiner, Community Development Director for the city of West Chicago. 

The most recent clean-up of the soil ended in 2015. 

“However the sheet piling that was initially installed to protect workers excavating contaminated soil now traps residual contaminants preventing the ground water from naturally diluting over time,” wrote Liuan Huska for Borderless Magazine in July. 

The damage of the company’s poor disposal practices continues to affect West Chicago and its residents, and may do so for generations to come. 

Lindsay Light was a company that created gaslight mantles, which were small fabric bags infused with Thorium or other metal nitrates that fitted over a gas source. The company manufactured these mantles for 30 years, and then Kerr-McGee purchased the company. They manufactured for another decade before it was discovered that the company had been dumping radioactive waste into the groundwater and soil surrounding the plant and three other primary areas. 

That is when it was brought to the attention of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency through a group called TAG, Thorium Action Group that formed in West Chicago and began petitioning for a cleanup of the radiation. The Hispanic community was not informed of the radiation, and after the Campbell Soup company sold their rental housing, they were forced to find homes. Realtors took the opportunity to sell the thorium-contaminated homes. They gave new residents deals on the homes, but never told the people who were to live there that there was thorium radiation in their homes, sandboxes, and the lakes that their children played in. Clean-up began in 1984. There was a video created about the issue that shows the original cleanup. 

 “The residents started to notice men dressed in anti-contamination suits cleaning up and testing various residential areas,” according to a thesis titled, Thorium Shipped out and Dust of Deceit Left behind in West Chicago, written by Lindsey Stern in the spring of 2016. 

The company was purchased by Anadarko Petroleum in 2006, which was later purchased by Occidental Petroleum in 2019. But have these companies turned over a new leaf? 

Occidental Petroleum’s mission statement is: “To develop energy resources safely, profitably, and responsibly.” 

“These things have a half life of 14 million years,” said Professor of Engineering and Technology at Northern Illinois University, and former West Chicago resident, Dr. Theodore Hogan in reference to radiation. 

In other words, thorium exists in the human immune system for 28 million years.  

The people who live in these communities have suffered adverse effects their entire lives. They have no way to remove the radiation they were exposed to, and they often have no means of healing themselves and their communities. Human beings are forced to live with debilitating conditions and deformities for their entire lives because these companies chose to dump their toxic chemicals into their groundwater or soil. 

Hogan was a child when he was exposed to thorium in West Chicago, and has since spent his life learning about this radiation and the effects of it on the human body. 

“I’m still angry now,” said Hogan when asked about his own experience with radiation. 

The effects of the radiation that West Chicago has experienced can never truly be measured. That is clear with Hogan’s own reaction to questions about Thorium clean up. Even with the clean up going on, people will never be the same as before. 

Hogan also noted that the only way that anyone can truly help these communities move forward is to recognize that contamination happened, and to talk about it. He suggested it was important to give people a place to air their anger, grief, and confusion after their lives are turned upside down. 

To Kerr McGee, “You need to pay up. We need reparations for all the people who are suffering from chronic illnesses that you caused,” said Julieta Alcantar-Garcia, Founder of PODER, an organization that is built to stop environmental racism in the West Chicago community.  

October 6, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment