Antinuclear

US Trying to Water Down New Cease-Fire Resolution at UN Security Council

“support for Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Gaza is losing him respect all over the world.” – Mary Robinson

“The U.S. is increasingly isolated, with allies like Australia, Canada, India, Japan, and Poland switching their votes in the UN General Assembly to support an immediate humanitarian cease-fire,” said Robinson. “The U.S. cannot afford to be further isolated by vetoing this resolution.”

“The U.S. cannot afford to be further isolated by vetoing this resolution,” said one human rights advocate.

SCHEERPOST, By Jake Johnson / Common Dreams, 19 Dec 23

The United Nations Security Council on Monday delayed an expected vote on a new Gaza cease-fire resolution as the U.S. worked to weaken the measure’s language, objecting to the proposed call for an “urgent and sustainable cessation of hostilities.”

Unnamed diplomats toldThe Associated Press that the wording will likely be changed to call for a “suspension” of hostilities or some other watered down phrasing amenable to the U.S., which used its veto power to tank a Security Council cease-fire resolution less than two weeks ago.

The veto drew international condemnation, and calls for a cease-fire have grown in the days since. In an overwhelming 153-10 vote on December 12, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution demanding an “immediate humanitarian cease-fire,” with the U.S. and Israel among the small number of opponents. Unlike those passed by the Security Council, General Assembly resolutions are nonbinding.

The 15-member Security Council is expected to vote on the new, potentially watered down cease-fire resolution as early as Tuesday morning.

Mary Robinson, chair of The Elders and former president of Ireland, said in a statement ahead of the vote that U.S. President Joe Biden’s “support for Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Gaza is losing him respect all over the world.”

“The U.S. is increasingly isolated, with allies like Australia, Canada, India, Japan, and Poland switching their votes in the UN General Assembly to support an immediate humanitarian cease-fire,” said Robinson. “The U.S. cannot afford to be further isolated by vetoing this resolution.”

“But even if passed, such resolutions are not enough,” she continued. “UNSCR 2712, agreed last month, is not being fully implemented. It calls for the protection of civilians, the release of all hostages, and immediate humanitarian access. Only a cease-fire will allow for these calls to be met.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….more https://scheerpost.com/2023/12/19/us-trying-to-water-down-new-cease-fire-resolution-at-un-security-council/

December 22, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Geopolitics has already doomed the second nuclear renaissance

The remaining hope is that of “small modular reactors”. But the number of such reactors required to triple nuclear capacity is immense, running well into the thousands.

The announcement is better seen as a piece of theatre, driven by the domestic political needs of the governments concerned (particularly the UK and France) than as a serious commitment.

JOHN QUIGGIN, DEC 21, 2023, https://johnquigginblog.substack.com/p/geopolitics-has-already-doomed-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=806934&post_id=139962407&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email

The announcement is better seen as a piece of theatre, driven by the domestic political needs of the governments concerned (particularly the UK and France) than as a serious commitment

At the COP28 meeting, 22 countries including U.S., Canada, the UK, France, South Korea, and the UAE pledged to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. But it will be impossible to meet this pledge, or even to maintain currently nuclear capacity, while decoupling from Russian and Chinese suppliers, most notably Rosatom and China General Nuclear. Of 60 nuclear plants currently under construction, more than 40 are being built by Russian and Chinese firms.

The difficulties with the pledge can be illustrated by the abandonment of Finland’s proposed Hanhikivi 1 project, which was to be built by Rosatom and the difficulties being faced by the UK government in funding the proposed Sizewell C and Bradwell B projects, after forcing out CGN. CGNs recent withdrawal from the Hinkley C project has thrown this project, already under construction, into doubt. The remaining firm involved, state-owned French firm EDF, is massively indebted, and is also being pressed to support new construction in France.

The ability of the remaining Western large-scale nuclear firms to ramp up production capacity is very limited. Westinghouse has already been bankrupted by the Vogtle and VC Summer projects, while Kepco is in severe financial difficulty. Once the remaining handful of projects under construction by these firms is completed, they are likely to leave the business altogether.

The remaining hope is that of “small modular reactors”. But the number of such reactors required to triple nuclear capacity is immense, running well into the thousands. The abandonment of the Nuscale project (originally projected for 12 reactors, then 6) makes it highly unlikely that even pilot projects will be in operation until well into the 2030s.

The announcement is better seen as a piece of theatre, driven by the domestic political needs of the governments concerned (particularly the UK and France) than as a serious commitment. In this context, it is worth noting that the target of tripling capacity exactly matches the aspirational policy of the UK, announced under former PM Boris Johnson.

Compare the case of solar, where the commitment to decouple from China has already led to a large expansion of US capacity. Since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), more than 240 GW of manufacturing capacity has been announced across the solar supply chain. To summarise: decoupling will necessitate a huge expansion in renewables, while making growth in nuclear capacity virtually impossible.

December 21, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Blood Money: The Top Ten Politicians Taking the Most Israel Lobby Cash

SCHEERPOST, By Alan MacLeod / MintPress News 20 Dec 23

As the Israeli attack on Gaza, Lebanon and Syria intensifies, the U.S. public watch on aghast. A new poll finds that Americans support a permanent ceasefire by a more than 2:1 ratio (including the vast majority of Democrats and a plurality of Republicans).

And yet, despite this, only 4% of elected members of the House support even a temporary ceasefire, and the United States continues to veto U.N. resolutions working towards ending the violence. Walter Hixson, a historian concentrating on U.S. foreign relations, told MintPress News:

“Unfettered support for Israel and the lobby consistently puts the United States at odds with international human rights organizations and the vast majority of nations over Israel’s war crimes and blatant violations of international law. The current U.N. vote on a ceasefire in Gaza [which the U.S. vetoed] is just the latest example.”

Here, Hixson is referring to the pro-Israel lobby, a loose connection of influential groups that spend millions on pressure campaigns, outreach programs, and donations to American politicians, all with one goal in mind: making sure the United States supports the Israeli government’s policies full stop, including backing Israeli expansion, blocking Palestinian statehood and opposing a growing boycott divestment and sanctions movement (BDS) at home.

Internationally, Israel has lost virtually all its support. But it still has one major backer: the United States government. Part of this is undoubtedly down to the extraordinary lengths the lobby goes to secure backing, including showering U.S. politicians with millions of dollars in contributions. 

In this investigation, MintPress News breaks down the top ten currently serving politicians who have taken the most pro-Israel cash since 1990.

1 JOE BIDEN, $4,346,264

The largest recipient of Israel lobby money is President Joe Biden. From the beginning of his political career, Biden, according to his biographer Branko Marcetic, “established himself as an implacable friend of Israel,” spending his Senate career “showering Israel with unquestioning support, even when its behavior elicited bipartisan outrage.” The future president was a key figure in securing record sums of U.S. aid to the Jewish state and helped block a 1998 peace proposal with Palestine.

The support for Israeli policies has continued into the present, with his administration insisting that there are “no red lines” that it could cross that would cause it to lose American support. In essence, Biden has given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a carte blanche to break any rules, norms or laws he wishes to.

This has included ethnic cleansing and war crimes such as the bombing of schools, hospitals and places of worship using banned weapons like white phosphorous munitions. The arms Israel is using come supplied directly by the U.S. In November, the Biden administration rubber-stamped another $14.5 billion military aid package to Israel, ensuring the carnage would continue.

For his staunch support, Biden has received more than $4.3 million from pro-Israel groups since 1990.

2 ROBERT MENÉNDEZ, $2,483,205

The New Jersey senator has received nearly $2.5 million in contributions and, in the wake of the Hamas attack on October 7, has been a key figure in drumming up support for Israel. Describing Operation Al-Aqsa Flood as “barbaric atrocities” that were an “affront to humankind itself,” Menéndez gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor where he addressed Biden directly, stating:

“33

He went on to claim that Israel and the United States are intrinsically linked and were founded on the same principles.

Menéndez also courted controversy after he demanded that the U.S. help Israel “wipe Hamas from the face of the Earth,” even as Israel was leveling Gaza by carpet bombing it.

In October, he co-sponsored a Senate resolution “standing with Israel against terrorism” that passed unanimously, without dissent.

3 MITCH MCCONNELL, $1,953,160

The Senate Minority Leader is one of the most powerful politicians in America and has used his influence to attempt to force through legislation criminalizing BDS. He has described the peaceful tactic as “an economic form of anti-Semitism that targets Israel.”

McConnell is known to be very close to Prime Minister Netanyahu and supported a bill condemning the United Nations and calling on the U.S. to continue to veto any U.N. resolution critical of Israel. Last month, he strongly opposed steps taken towards applying basic U.S. and international law on weapons shipments to Israel.

Under current U.S. law, Washington is duty-bound to stop supplying arms to nations committing serious human rights violations. McConnell, however, said that applying these standards to Israel would be “ridiculous,” explaining that:

“Our relationship with Israel is the closest national security relationship we have with any country in the world, and to condition, in effect, our assistance to Israel to their meeting our standards it seems to me is totally unnecessary… This is a democracy, a great ally of ours, and I do not think we need to condition the support that hopefully we will give to Israel very soon.”

McConnell has received nearly $2 million from pro-Israel groups.

4 CHUCK SCHUMER, $1,725,324

“Next on the list is McConnell’s Democratic opponent, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who had taken over $1.7 million from Israel lobbying groups. In recent weeks, Schumer has taken the lead in steering the public conversation away from Israel’s crimes and towards a supposed rise in anti-Semitism across America. “To us, the Jewish people, the rise in anti-semitism is a crisis. A five-alarm fire that must be extinguished,” the New York Senator said, adding that “Jewish-Americans are feeling singled out, targeted and isolated. In many ways, we feel alone.”

The idea that anti-Semitic hate is exploding across the United States comes largely from a report published by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which claims that anti-Semitic incidents have risen by 337% since October 7. Buried in the small print, however, is the fact that 45% of these “anti-Semitic” incidents the ADL has tallied are pro-Palestine, pro-peace marches calling for ceasefires, including ones led by Jewish groups like If Not Now or Jewish Voice for Peace. (MintPress recently published an investigation into the ADL’s fudged numbers and its history of working for Israel and spying on progressive American groups.)

Schumer, however, has deliberately tried to conflate opposition to Israel’s bombardment of its neighbors with anti-Jewish racism, ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

5 STENY HOYER, $1,620,294………………………………………………..

TED CRUZ, $1,299,194………………………………………………………………….

7 RON WYDEN, $1,279,376…………………………………………………………….

8 DICK DURBIN, $1,126,020…………………………………………………

9 JOSH GOTTHEIMER, $1,109,370………………………………………….

10 SHONTEL BROWN, $1,028,686…………………………………….

 

A DARK FORCE IN US POLITICS

The most well-known and likely most influential group in the loose coalition referred to as the Israel lobby is AIPAC, American Israel Public Affairs Committee. With a staff of around 400 people and annual revenues that frequently top over $100 million, the organization is a huge, conservative force in American politics, flooding the system with gigantic amounts of money. Worse still, the group does not disclose the sources of its funding.

AIPAC’s stated goal is:

“To make America’s friendship with Israel so robust, so certain, so broadly based, and so dependable that even the deep divisions of American politics can never imperil that relationship and the ability of the Jewish state to defend itself.”

Yet Israel is widely recognized by international bodies such as the United Nations and human rights groups like Amnesty Internationaland Human Rights Watch as an apartheid state. It has near total control over the Gaza Strip, which, even before the latest attack, was an “unlivable” “open-air prison.” It is this state and these injustices that AIPAC and others seek U.S. support for.

American intransigence on Israel has helped make it a pariah nation, one that constantly has to veto U.N. resolutions and has lost its voting rights at UNESCO.

Not only does it give more money to Republicans than Democrats, but AIPAC also floods conservative Democrats’ coffers with funds, especially when they are up against progressive, pro-Palestine challengers……………………………………………………………….

IS THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG?

As such, AIPAC acts as a bulwark against progressive political change. In such a divisive political environment, few political issues unite Democrats and Republicans, as well as Israel and shutting down anti-establishment figures. As Hixson told MintPress:

Other than a handful of progressives (Bernie Sanders, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, etc.), the U.S. Congress invariably gives the lobby everything it wants, namely massive regular funding for Israeli militarism and an endless series of resolutions condemning Israel’s international foes and domestic critics.”

The question that arises from this is why? Why does Israel always seem to receive full support from Washington? Is the lobby really that effective? Why do so many U.S. politicians go along with it? Mazin Qumsiyeh, a professor at Bethlehem University, characterized Washington as full of amoral careerists, telling MintPress that:

“”They [Senators and Congresspersons] do not buy the Zionist argument. It is strictly personal interest: money and good media coverage and avoiding blackmail, as the Zionists have their dirty secrets which they could expose if they step out of line.”

Yet Israel also serves a vital purpose for the American empire. The region is not only geographically strategic but home to the world’s largest resources of hydrocarbons. Washington has always made it a top priority to control the flow of oil around the world, and Israel helps them do this. Militarily, Israel serves as a conduit the U.S. can work through, farming out its dirty work to Tel Aviv. It, therefore, represents an unofficial and beneficial “51st state.” As Joe Biden said in 1986 and has regularly repeated, Israel is the best investment the U.S. makes. “Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect our interests in the region,” he added.

Many other nations or industries have lobbied in Washington, D.C. But few have proven to be as organized or effective as the pro-Israel one. Nevertheless, public opinion, particularly among young people, has begun to drift away from it.

 The Overton Window is shifting; Professor Qumsiyeh told MintPress. “When I first went to the U.S. in 1979, the average citizen did not know anything about Palestine or knew only a negative, distorted picture driven by Hollywood and biased media. Things [have] changed,” he said.

Things have indeed changed. The streets of America have been filled with demonstrations against Israeli aggression. Millions of Americans have participated in Palestine solidarity protests, including hundreds of thousands in Washington, D.C. alone. Celebrities have spoken out against injustice. And social media is filled with posts showing sympathy for Gazans. There, too, Israel and pro-Israel groups have attempted to use their financial clout to influence the conversation, but to limited effect.

Fortunately for Israel, for now, at least, they can still rely on the unwavering support of senior American politicians, their pockets filled with AIPAC money, turning the other way as Israel carries out another genocide against Palestine.  https://scheerpost.com/2023/12/20/blood-money-the-top-ten-politicians-taking-the-most-israel-lobby-cash/

December 21, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dutton takes the nuclear option

Despite his enthusiasm, Peter Dutton has been reluctant to explain which electorates would host the reactors, where the waste would be stored, or how to pay for the proposal, with experimental micro-reactors in Russia, China and the USA all facing major cost blowouts and delays, despite massive amounts of government assistance.

By David Lowe, December 18, 2023,  https://www.echo.net.au/2023/12/dutton-takes-the-nuclear-option/

The Coalition has produced a policy! Don’t get too excited – this policy is recycled, and not in a good way – in fact it’s radioactive. Like Robert Menzies, John Howard and Tony Abbott before him, Peter Dutton wants to legalise nuclear electricity generation in Australia.

After lambasting Labor for the emissions caused by Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen attending COP28, the Liberal and National parties sent not one, not two, but seven elected representatives to the Dubai conference, or at least a sideline event designed to boost the interests of the nuclear industry. That well-known international energy expert, Lismore’s own Kevin Hogan, was one of those who joined the junket.

The group was led by the opposition’s climate change and energy spokesperson, Queenslander Ted O’Brien, who declared ‘COP28 will be known as the nuclear COP’, despite the fact that only 11 percent of countries at the Dubai talks agreed it was a good idea to triple nuclear power by 2050 as a response to the climate emergency. Apparently not everyone finds it as easy as the Coalition to forget Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island.

The Liberals and Nationals were in the UAE at the behest of the World Nuclear Association and the Orwellian-sounding Coalition for Conservation, which has a stated goal to ‘reduce emissions and protect the environment’, as long as obvious solutions like renewable energy and reducing energy consumption are not involved.

Smoke ’em if you’ve got ’em

As part of his ongoing quest for relevance and media attention, Peter Dutton’s enthusiasm for nuclear energy has been steadily growing over the last couple of years, particularly in the form of Small (don’t be scared!) Modular Reactors, which he’s suggested might be built on defunct coal power generation sites, using plentiful Australian uranium.

The opposition leader appears to have been heartened by Labor’s wholehearted support of Scott Morrison’s very expensive AUKUS submarine thought bubble, which has further opened the nuclear crack in this country. The Nationals’ David Littleproud has jumped happily on board, saying the market should decide what sort of power generation we have in Australia, not the government.

Chris Bowen has called the Coalition’s nuclear boosters post-truth ‘climate charlatans’ with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese describing the nuclear debate as ‘a huge distraction from what we need to do’. Former PM Malcolm Turnbull and former NSW Liberal treasurer Matt Kean are also public nuclear sceptics.

As Teals-backer Simon Holmes a Court put it last week, ‘We could throw a trillion dollars at SMRs today, and they still wouldn’t be operating in the time that we need the energy to replace the coal power stations that have reached end of life.’

Despite his enthusiasm, Peter Dutton has been reluctant to explain which electorates would host the reactors, where the waste would be stored, or how to pay for the proposal, with experimental micro-reactors in Russia, China and the USA all facing major cost blowouts and delays, despite massive amounts of government assistance.

The bottom line

The CSIRO has recently said there’s no way that small modular reactors can compete economically with the plummeting costs of renewable energy technology, even without considering the political and environmental issues. Their latest detailed report found that small reactors would cost up to twice as much per kilowatt-hour as large nuclear reactors. Renewable power, by contrast, costs one eighth as much.

December 19, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What I want for Christmas – for people, especially the media, to tell the truth a bit more often.

I was 7 when I discovered that Father Christmas was not real. Yes, a bit slow indeed. I felt so betrayed that my parents had lied to me. At least it solved the mystery of why I (badly behaved) got beaut presents, and my best friend (well behaved) got little ones. Twas all about the money available in each household, not about being naughty or nice.

The world, especially my world – the “Western world” continues to perpetrate comfortable weasel words and downright lies. And it all goes a bit crazy at this time of year - the addiction to rampant consumerism taking precedence over spending lovely times with family and friends.

Some of my favourite current lies. Top lie is ‘THE CLOUD’, and “CLOUD COMPUTING”. The only genuine cloud here is the veil of lies that covers the truth about the digital system – uncontrolled spread of steel and concrete datafarm monstrosities, guzzling water and electricity.

Then there are all the military lies and euphemisms “collateral damage” “special military operation” . In the case of the Israeli obliteration of Palestinians – there are the “targeting Hamas, not Palestinions” , “right to self-defence” , ”saving civilian lives” ”lowering the intensity” – when what is really meant is genocide.

Climate change action – is full of dubiously worded stuff, vaguely worded COP 28 statements with no effective target or date to “transition away from fossil fuels”- and  “transitional fuels can play a role”

Then there are the obfuscations, weasel words, and downright lies of the nuclear lobby – “clean” “green” “sustainable” “low carbon” “low cost” ………….

So, for Christmas and the New Year, it would be nice to read and hear some straight words that actually match the facts.

December 19, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear expert Mycle Schneider on the COP28 pledge to triple nuclear energy production: ‘Trumpism enters energy policy’

The entire logic that has been built up for small modular reactors is with the background of climate change emergency. That’s the big problem we have………………… Climate change emergency contains the notion of urgency. And so we are talking about something where the time factor needs to kick in………………….. And if we are talking about SMRs picking up any kind of substantial amounts of generating capacity in the current market, if ever, we’re talking about the 2040s at the very earliest.

 Now, we’re talking of tens of $billions that are going into subsidizing nuclear energy, especially as I said existing nuclear power plants.

The pledge was worded as a commitment “to work together to advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050″………… “This pledge is completely, utterly unrealistic.”…………………….“It’s like Trumpism enters energy policy.”

The Bulletin, By François Diaz-Maurin | December 18, 2023

Last week, a group of independent energy consultants and analysts released the much-anticipated 2023 edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2023 (WNISR). In over 500 pages, the report provides a detailed assessment of the status and trends of the international nuclear industry, covering more than 40 countries. Now in its 18^th edition, the report is known for its fact-based approach providing details on operation, construction, and decommissioning of the world’s nuclear reactors. Although it regularly points out failings of the nuclear industry, it has become a landmark study, widely read within the industry. Its release last week was covered by major energy and business news media, including Reuters (twice) and Bloomberg.

On December 2, the United States and 21 other countries pledged to triple the global nuclear energy capacity by 2050. The declaration, made during the UN climate summit of the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, sought to recognize “the key role of nuclear energy in achieving global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions-carbon neutrality by or around mid-century and in keeping a 1.5-degree Celsius limit on temperature rise within reach.” The pledge was worded as a commitment “to work together to advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050.” It was aspirational—and ambitious.

To discuss this pledge against the nuclear industry’s current trends and status, I sat down with Mycle Schneider, lead author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report.

………… Diaz-Maurin: It’s undoubtedly a landmark report. With over 500 pages, it’s also massive. In a nutshell, what should our readers know about the main developments in the world nuclear industry over the past year?

Schneider: It really depends on from which angle you approach the issue. I think, overall, the mind-boggling fact is that the statistical outcome of this analysis is dramatically different from the perception that you can get when you open the newspapers or any kind of media reporting on nuclear power. Everybody gets the impression that this is kind of a blooming industry and people get the idea that there are nuclear power plants popping up all over the world.

But what we’ve seen is that some of the key indicators are showing a dramatic decline. In fact, the share of nuclear power in the world commercial electricity mix has been dropping by almost half since the middle of the 1990s. And the drop in 2022 was by 0.6 percentage points, which is the largest drop in a decade, since the post-Fukushima year 2012.

We have seen a four percent drop in electricity generation by nuclear power in 2022, which, if you take into account that China increased by three percent and if you look at the world, means that the drop was five percent outside China. So it’s significantly different from the perception you can get, and we can dig into some of the additional indicators. For example, constructions [of new reactors] give you an idea what the trends are and what the dynamic is in the industry. And so, when you look at constructions you realize that, since the construction start of Hinkley Point C in the United Kingdom in late 2019 until the middle of 2023, there were 28 construction starts of nuclear reactors in the world. Of these, 17 were in China and all 11 others were carried out by the Russian nuclear industry in various countries. There was no other construction start worldwide.

………………………………………………………………………………..The point is that we have had actually an increasing capacity that generates less. And, for obvious reasons, the most dramatic drop was in France. The French reactor performance has been in decline since 2015. That is, to me, one of the really remarkable outcomes in recent years. If you compare the year 2010 to 2022, in France, the drop [in electricity generated] was 129 terawatt hours. What happened is basically that, from 2015 onward, the trend line was toward a reducing electricity generation due to an accumulation of events, which are important to understand.

It’s not so much the stress corrosion cracking [in reactor vessels] that everybody has been talking about or another technical phenomenon that hit the French nuclear power plants worst, although it’s true it had a significant impact and was totally unexpected. So, it’s not an aging effect, although you do have aging effects on top of it because a lot of reactors are reaching 40 years and need to pass inspections and require refurbishment, etc. But you had climate effects in France too. And strikes also hit nuclear power plants. You don’t have that in other countries. So, it’s the accumulation of effects that explain the decline in electricity generation. This unplanned and chaotic drop in nuclear power generation in France compares with the loss of nuclear generation in Germany of 106 terawatt hours between 2010 and 2022, but in this case due to a planned and coordinated nuclear phaseout.

Diaz-Maurin: That is an interesting way to look at the data. What is the biggest risk of keeping existing reactors operating up to 80 years, as some suggest, or even more?

Schneider: Well, nobody knows. This has never been done. It’s like: “What’s the risk of keeping a car on the street for 50 years?” I don’t know. It’s not the way you do things, usually. First, I should say that we’re not looking at risk in that Status Report. This is not the subject of the report. But the lifetime extension of reactors raises the questions of nuclear safety—and security, which has always been a topic for the Bulletin. 

If you have a reactor that has been designed in the 1970s, at the time nobody was talking or even thinking about drones or hacking, for example. People think of drones in general as a means to attack a nuclear power plant by X Y, Z. But in fact, what we’ve seen in the past are numerous drone flights over nuclear facilities. And so, there is the danger of sucking up information during those overflights. This raises security risks in another way. So, this idea of modernizing nuclear facilities continuously is obviously only possible to some degree. You can replace everything in a car, except for the body of the car. At some point, it’s not the same facility anymore. But you can’t do that with a nuclear power plant.

Diaz-Maurin: Talking about old facilities, Holtec International—the US-based company that specializes in nuclear waste management—say they want to restart the shutdown Palisades generating station in Michigan. Is it good news?

Schneider: To my knowledge, the only time that a closed nuclear power plant has been restarted was in Armenia, after the two units had been closed [in 1989] after a massive earthquake. We don’t have precise knowledge of the conditions of that restart, so I’m not so sure that this would be a good reference case. One has to understand that when a nuclear reactor is closed, it’s for some reason. It is not closed because [the utility] doesn’t like to do this anymore. In general, the most prominent reason [for closing reactors] over the past few years was poor economics.

This is, by the way, one of the key issues we’ve been looking at in the 2023 report: These entirely new massive subsidy programs in the US in particular didn’t exist [a year ago]. There were some limited programs on state level. Now these state support programs have been increased significantly and they are coupled in with federal programs, because the reactors are not competitive. So we’re talking really about a mechanism to keep these reactors online. That Palisades would restart is unique, in Western countries at least. For a plant that has been set to be decommissioned to restart, this has never been done. And, by the way, Holtec is not a nuclear operator. It is a firm that has specialized in nuclear decommissioning.

Now, that companies like Holtec can actually buy closed nuclear power plants and access their decommissioning funds with the promise to dismantle faster than would have been done otherwise, this is an entirely recent approach with absolutely no guarantee that it works. Under this scheme, there is no precedent where this has been done from A to Z. And obviously, there is the risk of financial default. For instance, it is unclear what happens if Holtec exhausts the funds before the decommissioning work is complete. Holtec’s level of liability is unclear to me prior to the taxpayer picking up the bill.

Diaz-Maurin: At Palisades, Holtec’s plan is to build two small modular reactors.

Schneider: Holtec is not a company that has any experience in operating—even less constructing—a nuclear power plant. So having no experience is not a good sign to begin with. Now, when it comes to SMRs—I call them “small miraculous reactors”—they are not existing in the Western world. One must be very clear about that. There are, worldwide, four [SMR] units that are in operation: two in China and two in Russia. And the actual construction history [for these reactors] is exactly the opposite to what was promised. The idea of small modular reactors was essentially to say: “We can build those fast. They are easy to build. They are cheap. It’s a modular production. They will be basically built in a factory and then assembled on site like Lego bricks.” That was the promise.

For the Russian project, the plant was planned for 3.7 years of construction. The reality was 12.7 years. In China, it took 10 years instead of five. And it’s not even only about delays. If you look at the load factors that were published by the Russian industry on the Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) of the IAEA, these SMRs have ridiculously low load factors, and we don’t understand the reasons why they don’t produce much. We know nothing about the Chinese operational record.

Diaz-Maurin: Last month, NuScale, the US-based company that develops America’s flagship SMR, lost its only customer, the Utah Associated Municipal Power System, a conglomerate of municipalities and utilities. This happened allegedly after a financial advisory firm reported on NuScale’s problems of financial viability. Have you followed this demise?

Schneider: Yes, of course. What happened there is that NuScale had promised in 2008 that it would start generating power by 2015. We are now in 2023 and they haven’t started construction of a single reactor. They have not even actually a certification license for the model that they’ve been promoting in the Utah municipal conglomerate. That’s because they have increased [the capacity of each module] from originally 40 megawatts to 77 megawatts.

Diaz-Maurin: Why is that? Is it a matter of economy of scale?

Schneider: Yes, of course. You need to build many modules if you want to get into economies of scale by number, if you don’t get into it by size. This is actually the entire history of nuclear power. So NuScale sought to increase the unit size in Utah. But then the deal with the municipalities collapsed after the new cost assessment in early 2023 showed that the six-module facility NuScale had planned would cost $9.3 billion, a huge increase over earlier estimates. It’s about $20,000 per kilowatt installed—almost twice as expensive as the most expensive [large-scale] EPR reactors in Europe.

Diaz-Maurin: Is it the same with the waste generated? Some analysts looking at the waste streams of SMRs conclude that smaller reactors will produce more radioactive materials per unit of kilowatt hour generated compared to larger reactors.

Schneider: That’s the MacFarlane and colleagues’ paper, which is pretty logical if you think about it. If you have a small quantity of nuclear material that irradiates other materials, then it’s proportionally more per installed megawatt than for a large reactor in which there is a larger core.

,………………Schneider: many technologies have been supported under the Inflation Reduction Act and many others will continue to receive significant support. But the problem here is different. The entire logic that has been built up for small modular reactors is with the background of climate change emergency. That’s the big problem we have.

Diaz-Maurin: Can you explain this?

Schneider: Climate change emergency contains the notion of urgency. And so we are talking about something where the time factor needs to kick in. If we look at how other reactor technologies have been introduced, a lot of them were supported by government funding, like the EPR in Europe or Westinghouse’s AP-1000 in the United States. Comparatively, the current status of SMR development—whether it’s NuScale, which is the most advanced, or others—corresponds to that of the middle of the 1990s [of the large light-water reactors]. The first EPR started electricity generation in 2022 and commercial operation only in 2023. And it’s the same with the AP-1000. By the way, both reactor types are not operating smoothly; they are still having some issues. So, considering the status of development, we’re not going to see any SMR generating power before the 2030s. It’s very clear: none. And if we are talking about SMRs picking up any kind of substantial amounts of generating capacity in the current market, if ever, we’re talking about the 2040s at the very earliest.

Diaz-Maurin: And that’s exactly where I want to turn the discussion now: nuclear and climate. At the COP28 last week in Dubai, 22 countries pledged to triple the global nuclear energy capacity of 2020 by 2050. What do these countries have in common when it comes to nuclear energy? In other words, why these 22 countries and not others?

Schneider: Most of them are countries that are already operating nuclear power plants and have their own interest in trying to drag money support, most of which by the way would go into their current fleets. Take EDF [France’s state-owned utility company], for example. Through the French government, EDF is lobbying like mad to get support from the European Union—European taxpayers’ money—for its current fleet. It’s not even for new construction, because the French know that they won’t do much until 2040 anyway. There is also another aspect that is related and that illustrates how this pledge is completely, utterly unrealistic.

The pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity is not to be discussed first in terms of pros or cons, but from the point of view of feasibility. And from this point of view, just looking at the numbers, it’s impossible. We are talking about a target date of 2050, which is 27 years from now. In terms of nuclear development, that’s tomorrow morning. If we look at what happened in the industry over the past 20 years since 2003, there have been 103 new nuclear reactors starting operation. But there have been also 110 that closed operation up until mid 2023. Overall, it’s a slightly negative balance. It’s not even positive. Now if you consider the fact that 50 of those new reactors that were connected to the grid were in China alone and that China closed none, the world outside China experienced a negative balance of 57 reactors over the past 20 years.

………………………………………….Now, if we look forward 27 years, if all the reactors that have lifetime extension licenses (or have other schemes that define longer operation) were to operate until the end of their license, 270 reactors will still be closed by 2050. This is very unlikely anyway because, empirically, reactors close much earlier: The average closing age over the past five years is approximately 43 years, and hardly any reactor reached the end of its license period. But even if they did, it would be 270 reactors closed in 27 years.

You don’t have to do math studies to know that it’s 10 per year. At some point it’s over. Just to replace those closing reactors, you’d have to start building, operating, grid connecting 10 reactors per year, starting next year. In the past two decades, the construction rate has been of five per year on average. So, you would need to double that construction rate only to maintain the status quo. Now, tripling again that rate, excuse me, there is just no sign there. I am not forecasting the future, but what the industry has been demonstrating yesterday and what is it is demonstrating today shows that it’s simply impossible, from an industrial point of view, to put this pledge into reality. To me, this pledge is very close to absurd, compared to what the industry has shown.

Diaz-Maurin: Based on your report, just to replace the closures, the nuclear industry would need to build and start operating one new reactor of an average size of 700-megawatt per month. And tripling the global capacity would require an additional 2.5 new reactors per month.

Schneider: Exactly; it’s a little less if you talk in terms of capacity. The capacity to be replaced by 2050 of those 270 units would be 230 gigawatts. Now, if small modular reactors were to be a significant contributor to this pledge, hundreds or even thousands of these things would need to be built to come anywhere near that objective. It’s impossible. We should come back to reality and discuss what’s actually feasible. Only then can we discuss what would be the pros and cons of a pledge.

But there was another pledge at the COP28, which is to triple the output of renewable energies by 2030. That’s seven years from now. To me, this pledge on renewable energy, if implemented, is the final nail in the coffin of the pledge on nuclear energy. It is very ambitious. Don’t underestimate that. Tripling renewables in seven years is phenomenally ambitious.

Diaz-Maurin: Is it feasible?

Schneider: Very difficult to say. But one important thing is that it’s not 22 countries. It’s over 100 countries that have already pledged their commitment to this objective. Also, a key player—if not the key player—is China. An important finding of our Status Report is that China generated for the first time in 2022 more power with solar energy than with nuclear energy. And this happened despite China being the only country to have been building [nuclear capacity] massively over the past 20 years. But still, the country is now generating more power with solar than with nuclear. The good news for the [renewable] pledge is that China is more or less on track with that tripling target. The rest of the world would have to speed up on renewables in a dramatic way to achieve this pledge. But at least China’s example shows that it’s feasible. That’s the interesting part. Because, on the contrary, there is no country—not even China—demonstrating that the nuclear pledge is possible.

Diaz-Maurin: If it’s not feasible, does the nuclear pledge impede other climate actions that are urgently needed then?

Schneider: That’s a good question. I think it’s a terrible signal, indeed. It’s like Trumpism enters energy policy: It’s a pledge that has nothing to do with reality, and it doesn’t matter. It is giving you the impression that it is feasible, that it is possible. And all that completely dilutes the attention and capital that are urgently needed to put schemes into place that work. And it doesn’t start with renewables, that’s very important to stress. It starts with sufficiency, efficiency, storage, and demand response. Only later comes renewable energy.

But these options are all on the table. They’re all demonstrated to be economic and competitive. That’s not the case with nuclear energy. It’s a pledge that has no realistic foundation that is taking away significant funding and focus. It used to be negligible funding. Up until a few years back, we were talking at most tens of millions of dollars. Now, we’re talking of tens of billions that are going into subsidizing nuclear energy, especially as I said existing nuclear power plants………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Schneider: What really has motivated most of my work over the past decades is that I can’t stand what you would call today “fake news.” All my work since the 1980s has been actually driven by the attempt to increase the level of information in—and having some kind of impact on—the decision-making process. To offer a service to civil society so it can take decisions based on facts, not beliefs. When I see what happens in terms of misinformation around nuclear power, it’s scary. 

I think, today, the Status Report is probably more important than ever. Because there’s such an unbelievable amount of hype out there. It’s almost becoming an issue for psychologists. It has less and less to do with rationality because the numbers are clear. They are utterly clear: The cost figures are clear; the development is clear; the trend analysis is clear. So it is clear, but it doesn’t matter. It’s like the claim of stolen elections of Trump supporters. All court cases have shown that this was not the case. But, for half of the US population, it doesn’t matter. And I find this absolutely scary. When it comes to issues like nuclear power, it’s fundamental that decisions are made on the basis of facts. 

Diaz-Maurin: Why is that?

Schneider: Because the stakes are incredibly high. First because of the capital involved. Researchers studying corruption cases know that the size of large projects’ contracts is a key driver for corruption. And the nuclear industry has been struggling with all kinds of mechanisms that are fraud yields. Financial corruption is only one issue.

Another is falsification. For a long time, we thought Japan Steel Works [JSW] was the absolute exemplary industry. Japanese factories used to build high quality and highly reliable key forged parts for nuclear power plants. It turns out, they have been falsifying quality-control documentation in hundreds of cases for decades. Corruption and falsification are two of the issues affecting the nuclear industry.

And, of course, the Bulletin has had a long focus on military issues related to nuclear energy. When we are talking about issues like SMRs, the key issue is not whether they are going to be safer or not, because there are not going to be many around anyway. So, safety is not the primary issue. But once you start signing cooperation agreements, it opens the valves to the proliferation of nuclear knowledge. And that is a big problem, because this knowledge can always be used in two ways: One is military for nuclear explosives, and the other is civilian for nuclear electricity and medical applications. Opening these valves on the basis of hype or false promise is a disaster. And the ones most actively opening these valves are the Russians. They are educating thousands of people from all around the world in nuclear materials and nuclear technology. In the United States, part of the thinking appears to say: “Oh, for God’s sake, better we train these people.”  https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneider-on-the-cop28-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-energy-production-trumpism-enters-energy-policy/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter12182023&utm_content=NuclearRisk_TripleNuclear_11182023

December 19, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear folks are exaggerating their “win” at COP 28

There was no COP28 pledge to triple nuclear.

After a fight, nuclear got listed as one of a number of possible technologies to use in accelerating transition from fossil fuels.

22 countries, including Canada tried to drive the triple nukes “pledge” but over 200 countries signed on to triple renewables and double energy efficiency ” the renewables pledge is IN the final GST decisions.

December 19, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment