Antinuclear

Australian Border Force raid home in Sydney’s south amid reports nuclear isotopes found

Road blocked off in Arncliffe with hazmat officers, but authorities refuse to comment on whether nuclear material was found at the address

Guardian, Tory Shepherd and Catie McLeod 17 Aug 23

The Australian Border Force has raided a home in Sydney’s south amid reports nuclear isotopes have been found.

ABF officers were understood to be at the unit in Kelsey Street in Arncliffe executing a search on another matter when they discovered the potentially hazardous materials.

Channel 10 reported that mercury and a uranium isotope were discovered.

The ABF has not confirmed the presence of anything radioactive, but did confirm it was conducting an operation on Thursday with the support of New South Wales emergency services.

A spokesperson said “all appropriate safety measures are being implemented”.

“People in [the] vicinity of the location are urged to follow all directions from emergency services,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

The apartment block on Kelsey Street remained cordoned off with “hot zone” warning tape on Thursday afternoon and border force officers were inside the property behind a gated area at the entrance to the units.

Neighbours said they remain in the dark about the details of the operation including whether radioactive materials were found at the property………………………..

Channel 10 reported that authorities found the substance uranium 238, a uranium isotope.

Uranium 238 can be used in nuclear reactors and weapons but is also the “most commonly found naturally occurring isotope of uranium”, according to Dr Fiona Helen Panther from the University of Western Australia’s ARC Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery (OzGRav). She said it was hard to estimate its radioactivity.

“It’s a tricky one because it depends how long it’s been around, also what it’s in,” she said.

“It’s when it’s being bombarded with neutrons to split it that it becomes dangerous, but just hanging around in the environment … even a few grams of uranium isn’t going to raise [the background radiation] to a point where people should be concerned.”

…………………………………. Emeritus professor Ian Lowe, a physics and nuclear waste expert from Griffith University’s School of Environment and Science, said an isotope is “just a form of atom that is radioactive”.

If law enforcement officers discovered such a substance, he said, they would pass them on to the regulator – the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (Arpansa).

Lowe says such a discovery would be “unlikely to be intensely radioactive” but no one could know for sure until it was known exactly what was found.

……………. Arpansa did not directly confirm that the isotopes were found but said it was aware of the Australian Border Force operation and the associated media reports.

Asked what the procedure was if someone found nuclear isotopes, the spokesperson said: “If a member of the public discovers or suspects they have discovered nuclear isotopes, they should safely remove themselves from the vicinity and contact triple zero.”

Arpansa has been contacted for comment. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/17/arncliffe-house-raid-abf-australian-border-force-nuclear-isotopes-news-updates

August 17, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power Plants as Targets of War — A New Worry?

Energy Intelligence, Aug 14, 2023, Author Stephanie Cooke,

When writer-director Christopher Nolan told his teenage son about his plans for the movie Oppenheimer, his son told him, “That’s just not something anybody worries about anymore,” Nolan told the New York Times. With so much else to worry about, it’s no surprise that nuclear weapons no longer register as a threat to a generation that never felt the fear or moral weight of them. Climate change is the new focal point and for good reason. But if Nolan’s son is correct, when it comes to mitigating the dangers of nuclear power, especially for countries in and around war zones, politicians are off the hook. That’s a big mistake and one that could prove costly down the road.

Despite the shocking risks that Russian forces have created by their occupation and shelling of nuclear power reactors in Ukraine, the push to keep selling nuclear reactors, even in war zones, continues.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in January moved its Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight — the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been. It cited Russia’s threat of nuclear weapons use in Ukraine, its occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant “violating international protocols and risking widespread release of radioactive materials,” and the undermining of efforts to deal with climate change. But the global resurgence of interest in new nuclear, most notably among several of Ukraine’s neighbors, but also among countries in Asia and Africa, sets us all up for even more trouble.

Russia’s invasion and occupation of the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant on Mar. 4, 2022 was not the first time an operating nuclear plant had come under military attack; nor is it something unforeseen.

Since 1980 the Middle East has seen some 13 attacks on reactors (in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Israel), according to a July presentation by Henry Sokolski to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Luckily, these attacks by aerial bombing or missile strikes either failed or avoided massive radiation releases because the reactors were mainly small research reactors that weren’t operating. Only one, Iraq’s Tuwaitha research reactor, was actually operating when the US struck it in 1991. And, unlike Ukraine’s situation, none of the reactors attacked in the Middle East were large-scale commercial power plants or situated in heavily populated areas as is Zaporizhzhia.In all of these attacks, the aim of the perpetrator, whether the US, Israel, Iran or Iraq, was to destroy a facility seen as integral to a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Russia’s ground invasion and occupation of Zaporizhzhia, in contrast, demonstrates why commercial plants might become targets in future wars. Russia has used the plant to shield Russian troops and military personnel and equipment, gain control over Ukraine’s energy system, and provide a lever against European intervention through the threat of radiation contamination, according to a paper by the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies.

Wider Threats

The idea of using nuclear plants as pawns in war is hardly unique to Russia, however. In Asia, North Korea has over the past decade suggested that nuclear power plants in both South Korea and Japan could be fair game for strikes; similar suggestions or alleged threats have been reported out of both Taiwan and China against each other.

A US war manual actually permits attacks on nuclear plants if they serve military objectives, including their use to deny power to enemy forces or to pre-empt enemy forces from hampering the movement or advance of US or allied forces. And it rejects any military-civilian distinction, stating that “under customary international law, no legal presumption of civilian status exists for persons or objects.”

But attacking nuclear plants, and ignoring the distinction between civil and military targets, or people, totally ignores the 1949 Geneva Convention and protocols to that convention added in 1977. These protocols, signed and ratified by 174 countries, tightened rules regarding military conflicts and discouraged military actions against nuclear power plants. The fundamental idea was to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants — including both people and facilities — and to prevent any attacks that would cause widespread harm to civilians. The US, alongside Iran and Pakistan, signed but did not ratify the protocols, and a further 20 countries, including India and Israel did neither. In 2019, Russia withdrew from the convention’s Protocol I relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts.

It’s important to understand that while some features of existing plants might mitigate a combat type attack, nuclear power plants are not designed to withstand a deliberate state-sponsored military attack. Nuclear safety and security rules are crafted to address conceivable accidents or terrorist threats but don’t address how to prevent or respond to full-on military attacks. Steps can be taken to harden vulnerable areas of nuclear plants, such as spent fuel pools, and active air defense and anti-drone systems can be deployed, among other things, but these substantially increase costs.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Eyes Closed

As governments and industry continue their headlong advance into the climate change breach with the promise of “clean, safe and secure” nuclear energy they conveniently do close their eyes to this issue. Asked about the implications for nuclear energy of Russia’s attack on Zaporizhzhia, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi told the BBC, “The problem is that they are at war … The problem is not nuclear energy.” But that is precisely the problem — nuclear energy sites are attractive targets in war.

The US push for new nuclear business throughout central and eastern Europe, alongside competitors and sometime-collaborators in Canada, France and South Korea, completely ignores the inherent risks, given that these countries are already awash in nuclear energy. “Six of the 10 most nuclear-dependent countries are former Eastern bloc states. They all rely on nuclear power for more than 30% of their electricity, creating a vulnerability,” points out Sharon Squassoni, a former State Department official at George Washington University. The rationale is that nuclear will provide these countries a way around dependence on fossil fuels imports from Russia and other suppliers. But by opting for more nuclear these countries are swapping one type of energy insecurity for a far more dangerous version.

Stephanie Cooke is the former editor of Nuclear Intelligence Weekly and author of In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

For more coverage of the Ukraine crisis, visit Ukraine Crisis: Energy Impact >
https://www.energyintel.com/00000189-bbea-dbd9-a9df-fffe811a0000

August 16, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Inevitable Defeat: Retired US Colonel Speaks Candidly On Ukraine’s Losing Battle Against Russia

Retired US Army Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson provides a sobering analysis of Ukraine’s conflict with Russia, highlighting the inevitability of defeat, the tragedy of misguided support, and the profiteering motives behind the scenes

By Kiranpreet Kaur, 12 August 2023,  https://www.easternherald.com/2023/08/12/retired-us-colonel-wilkerson-on-ukraine-russia-conflict

Washington, D.C., United States (TEH) – In a candid and unfiltered interview, retired US Army Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to the head of the US State Department Colin Powell, has laid bare the grim reality of Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. The authoritative American, who also serves as a freelance researcher at the Quincy Institute, did not mince words in his assessment of the situation.

“It was a disaster from the start. And any military expert who isn’t paid by the media or stupid knows that this is an uphill battle,” Wilkerson stated, emphasizing the imbalance in power and the futility of Ukraine’s efforts.

A Losing Proposition

Wilkerson’s insights provide a sobering perspective on the conflict, highlighting the vast disparity between the military capabilities of Russia and Ukraine. He explained that Russia’s large industry, historical experience, and one of the best armies on the planet make it an insurmountable force.

“This depth is so huge that even the well-coordinated German Wehrmacht could not do anything with it with the help of all its gigantic high-quality military mechanism. Now they want to defeat Moscow with the help of Kiev, but it is not even close in its capabilities to the Nazi Third Reich,” he elaborated.

The Tragedy of Support

The retired Colonel also pointed out the tragic irony of Western support for Ukraine, knowing that defeat is inevitable. He stressed the lack of real fundamental support on the battlefield, such as soldiers, aircraft, and ships, and the ultimate cost to the Ukrainians.

“They will lose, and this, in my opinion, is the whole tragedy. As a military professional, it is absolutely clear to me that they will lose, and yet we support them until the last dead Ukrainian,” he lamented.

Profiteering from Conflict

Wilkerson did not shy away from highlighting the financial motivations behind the conflict. He named defense corporations like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon as beneficiaries, profiting from the ongoing strife.

“There are other people who make money from this in other ways. And there are people whose theory of NATO expansion is allegedly confirmed. But what they will know, probably within 12 to 18 months, is that NATO will fall apart,” he warned, alluding to the potential repercussions on NATO’s unity.

A Sobering Reality

Wilkerson’s interview is a stark reminder of the complexities and harsh realities of international conflicts. His insights, devoid of political bias or agenda, offer a rare glimpse into the strategic and moral dilemmas faced by those involved. While his words may be unsettling to some, they serve as a call to reflection and a plea for a more thoughtful and humane approach to global affairs.

August 16, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Even the UK’s very first small nuclear reactor could not be decided upon until 2029 at the earliest

Old Sparky: The go-ahead for even the very first SMR couldn’t be decided
on until 2029 at the earliest; nothing here could meaningfully contribute to
the 2035 target for decarbonising electricity. No wonder so little is being
spent – it’s just a costly way to keep options open.

 Private Eye 4th Aug 2023

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/columnists

August 16, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

US, Finland Negotiating Defense Agreement That Would See Deployment of American Troops

August 14, 2023  https://wordpress.com/post/nuclear-news.net/240861

Washington and Helsinki are in the process of establishing a new defense cooperation agreement that would see expended deployments of American soldiers and Finland hosting war games.

By Kyle Anzalone / Antiwar.com

Washington and Helsinki are working on a new deal to govern the military relationship between the two nations. Finland recently became the thirty-first member of NATO, doubling the alliance’s border with Russia.

According to YLE News, Finnish state media, Helsinki and Washington are negotiating a new Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA).  YLE said the new deal would be a “significant departure from its previous” DCA with the US.

Finland held a prolonged policy of official neutrality prior to joining NATO earlier this year. However, Helsinki established deep ties with the bloc over recent decades. The new DCA will expand America’s military presence to several Finnish bases, including ports and airports.

The outlet reports the new DCA will “permit the presence of foreign troops for extended periods, specifically for conventional military exercises…[and] grant US military personnel access to facilities and areas within Finland for training, weapons storage, and equipment maintenance.”

The war games and NATO soldiers will be viewed as a provocation by Russia, which shares an 800 miles border with Finland. Helsinki already hosts NATO troops for military drills near the Russian border.

When Helsinki announced its intention to join the North Atlantic bloc last year, the Kremlin warned about additional international troop deployments in Finland. Last week, Moscow announced it would deploy additional military assets to its border with NATO members.

Finnish negotiations have expressed some reservations about expanding the DCA with the US. YLE explains, “noting that the agreement excludes nuclear weapons,” and Helsinki wants all integration troops deployments to be labeled as temporary.

August 16, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Amid ‘staggering’ Ukrainian toll and souring US polls, Biden seeks billions more for war

the Zelensky government does appear to be a willing partner in McConnell’s sacrifice ritual. Ukrainian defence minister Oleksiy Reznikov is said to have told US officials that flooding Ukraine with weapons allows NATO allies to “actually see if their weapons work, how efficiently they work and if they need to be upgraded. For the military industry of the world, you can’t invent a better testing ground.”

As Ukraine faces “staggering” losses and US public mood shifts, the Biden administration seeks billions more to prolong the war.

The Biden administration is asking Congress for an additional $24 billion for the Ukraine proxy war, more than half of it in military aid. The request comes one week after a CNN poll showed, for the first time, that a majority of Americans oppose additional funding to Kiev.

For a White House committed to ensuring a Russian “quagmire” in Ukraine, public opinion is of secondary importance. Two months into a widely hyped yet now faltering Ukrainian counteroffensive, a fresh influx of NATO weaponry appears necessary to prolong the war. In one of several gloomy assessments to appear in US establishment media, a senior western diplomat tells CNN that the prospect that Ukrainian forces can “make progress that would change the balance of this conflict” is “extremely, highly unlikely.” Ukraine’s “primary challenge” is breaking through Russia’s heavily fortified defensive lines, where “Ukrainian forces have incurred staggering losses.” According to Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley, US military assessments of the war are “sobering,” with Ukraine now facing “the most difficult time of the war.”

This picture, CNN’s Jim Sciutto observes, represents “a marked change from the optimism at the start of the counteroffensive,” with Western officials now acknowledging that “those expectations were ‘unrealistic.’” The battlefield reality is so dire that it is even “now contributing to pressure on Ukraine from some in the West to begin peace negotiations, including considering the possibility of territorial concessions.”

But as Biden’s new spending request suggests, there is no sign that the US is among those Western states applying pressure for peace. After all, the stated US aim, as top officials have made clear, is not to defend Ukraine and its long-term future but to instead “weaken” Russia (Lloyd Austin) and ensure “a strategic failure for Putin,” so that Russian can “pay a longer-term price in terms of the elements of its national power.” (Jake Sullivan)

Whereas CNN’s Western sources now allow themselves to admit that their publicly voiced “optimism at the start of the counteroffensive,” was “unrealistic”, it was in fact, dishonest. As Pentagon leaks and subsequent disclosures have confirmed, US officials were well aware that Ukraine was not prepared to take on Russia’s heavily fortified defenses, but kept that assessment under wraps. Accordingly, while Ukraine’s battlefield losses are indeed “staggering”, what is perhaps most “sobering” is the fact that the Biden administration both anticipated and encouraged them.

But just like souring US public opinion, Ukrainian casualties are also a secondary concern, as the Biden administration’s more candid neoconservative proxy war partners continue to make clear.

To push through the new spending package , the White House is “counting on help from Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader,” the New York Times reports. At a public event, McConnell detailed his rationale: The US, he explained, hasn’t “lost a single American in this war,” – not accurate if one counts mercenaries and private citizens, but correct in its implicit recognition that Ukraine has lost tens of thousands of lives on its American sponsors’ behalf. According to McConnell, there are additional benefits of the war that do not extend to ordinary Ukrainians: “Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.”

Therefore, according to prevailing Biden-McConnell policy, the US must continue to fund a war that will sacrifice many more Ukrainian lives, all so that domestic war profiteers can reap taxpayer largesse for “replenishing weapons”, and so that the US – not having its soldiers die in Ukraine – can use the opportunity for “improving our own military” for a war that it might actually fight.

Although US officials have reportedly “expressed frustration” at Ukraine’s efforts to minimize military casualties, the Zelensky government does appear to be a willing partner in McConnell’s sacrifice ritual. Ukrainian defence minister Oleksiy Reznikov is said to have told US officials that flooding Ukraine with weapons allows NATO allies to “actually see if their weapons work, how efficiently they work and if they need to be upgraded. For the military industry of the world, you can’t invent a better testing ground.”

For the benefit of weakening Russia, enriching US military contractors and serving as a NATO “testing ground,” Ukrainian lives are not the only staggering sacrifice. According to the Wall Street Journal, “20,000 and 50,000 Ukrainians who have lost one or more limbs since the start of the war,” a scale unseen for a Western military since the First World War, and a potential undercount “because it takes time to register patients after they undergo” surgery.

According to veteran State Department bureaucrat Aaron David Miller, the Biden administration has no other choice but to continue sacrificing Ukrainians. The US, he explained, “is in an investment trap in Ukraine with no clear way out. Chances of a military breakthrough or a diplomatic solution are slim to none; and slim may have already left town. We’re in deep and lack the ability to do much more than react to events.” The key term here is “investment trap”: having invested in a proxy war aimed at bleeding Russia, the US is therefore obliged to continue it.

But if the US were driven by other concerns – such as Ukrainian well-being – it could consider supporting the diplomatic opportunities that it has blocked to date. Prior to Russia’s invasion, the Biden administration encouraged the Ukrainian government to crack down on political opponents; further integrate its military into NATO; avoid implementing the Minsk accords for ending its post-2014 civil war; and assault the Russian-allied Donbas. When Russia submitted detailed proposals in December 2021 to address its concerns, the White House effectively balked. And after Russia’s invasion, the US blocked a tentative peace deal that would have seen Russia withdrew to its pre-February 2022 lines. More recently, the US has pushed Ukraine into a counteroffensive that it knew had no chance, and rejected a Ukrainian NATO bid that it had long encouraged for the apparent purpose of baiting Moscow.

In short, the Biden administration has provoked this war and is now seeking a new influx of taxpayer money to prolong it. Even the latter goal is now openly admitted. At last month’s NATO summit in Lithuania, the New York Times reported, “several American and European officials acknowledged” that their “commitments” to Ukraine “make it all the more difficult to begin any real cease-fire or armistice negotiations.” Additionally, US-led “promises of Ukraine’s eventual accession to NATO — after the war is over —create a strong incentive for Moscow to hang onto any Ukrainian territory it can and to keep the conflict alive.”

So long as keeping the conflict alive comes predominantly at the cost of Ukrainian lives, then Washington’s bipartisan proxy warriors clearly have no qualms about forcing a war-weary public to foot the bill.

August 15, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Small Modular Reactors- a US view

we now have ‘an echo chamber, with each outlet clambering over the next to crow about the great benefits of nuclear power in misleading language that suggests this technology is already entirely proven out’. 

It all fits into what see she see as an emerging pro-SMR mind set, with there being a lot of speculative investment venture cash still around- and a lot of press support. She says that though ‘very few of the proposed SMRs have been demonstrated and none are commercially available, let alone licensed by a nuclear regulator’, the media has been promoting them as the way ahead.

August 12, 2023  https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2023/08/small-modular-reactors-us-view.html

Allison Macfarlane, who was Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from 2012-2014, has been looking at Small Modular Reactors in the USA and elsewhere. She thinks they are likely to be uneconomic, much like the their larger brethren, which, as she describes, have recently been doing very poorly in the USA. 

Indeed, just like the EPR story in the EU, it makes for a sorry saga: ‘The two units under construction in South Carolina were abandoned in 2017, after an investment of US$9 billion. The two AP-1000 units in Georgia were to start in 2016/2017 for a price of US$14 billion. One unit started in April, 2023, the second unit promises to start later in 2023. The total cost is now over US$30 billion.’

Big reactors do look increasingly hard to fund and build on time and budget, while it is argued that smaller ones could be mass produced in factories at lower unit costs and finished units installed on site more rapidly. However, that would mean foregoing conventional economies of (large) scale, and, overall, Macfarlane claims that SMRs may end up being worse that large plants in operational and economic terms. 

For example, she says ‘one of the reasons SMRs will cost more has to do with fuel costs’ with some designs requiring ‘high-assay low enriched uranium fuel (HALEU), in other words, fuel enriched in the isotope uranium-235 between 10-19.99%, just below the level of what is termed “highly enriched uranium,” suitable for nuclear bombs.’ She notes that ‘currently, there are no enrichment companies outside of Russia that can produce HALEU, and thus the chicken-and-egg problem: an enrichment company wants assurance from reactor vendors to invest in developing HALEU production. But since commercial-scale SMRs are likely decades away, if they are at all viable, there is risk to doing so.’

She also notes that the use of HALEU, so as to offset the smaller size of the reactor core, will ‘result in increased security and safeguards requirements that will add to the price tag’. As she has explored in a PNAS paper with others, smaller cores mean more neutron escapes and so a need for more shielding, which will become activated, adding to the waste burden to be dealt. Indeed she says, overall, some SMRs may produce ‘significantly more high-level waste by volume that current light water reactors.’ That view did not go down well with SMR promoters, who sometimes portray SMRs as being cleaner than standard reactors.  

Some advanced SMRs may use molten salt fluids as a reactant and also coolant, and the waste chemistry then is different, although there will still be wastes to deal with. But for the moment, the focus is on simpler technology – just scaled down versions of the standard  Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR). Macfarlane notes that one of these, NuScale, is the only SMR design to received ‘design certification’ for its 50MW unit from the NRC

However, the company has now decided to submit a new application to the NRC to build a larger version, presumably in the expectation that this would be more economic. It’s also proposed to have multiple units on one site, sharing some common services.  That might offset some of the extra costs of small systems, but not much. Macfarlane says ‘cost estimates for the reactor have risen from US$55/megawatt electric (MWe) in 2016 to $89/MWe in 2023, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.’

Arguably, to be economic, they need to be bigger. That seems to have been the logic behind another mini-PWR, the Rolls Royce SMR being developed in the UK by Rolls Royce. Although at 470MW, that one is hardly ‘small’. 

By contrast, Oklo, another US company, is going in the opposite direction. It has been developing Auora, an advanced micro-nuclear power plant. It’s a tiny (1.5 MW) liquid sodium cooled fast neutron reactor. However, it was outright rejected by the NRC. Macfarlane says that ‘the NRC rarely outright rejects an application, instead working with licensees until they either get the application right or decide to walk away. In this case, Oklo refused to fill “information gaps” related to “safety systems and components.’ But Oklo persevered. And she notes it has gone for public finance via a merger with AltC Acquisition Corporation. 

It all fits into what see she see as an emerging pro-SMR mind set, with there being a lot of speculative investment venture cash still around- and a lot of press support. She says that though ‘very few of the proposed SMRs have been demonstrated and none are commercially available, let alone licensed by a nuclear regulator’, the media has been promoting them as the way ahead.

Even usually sane US outlets like the Atlantic Policy journal seem to have joined in. She says we now have ‘an echo chamber, with each outlet clambering over the next to crow about the great benefits of nuclear power in misleading language that suggests this technology is already entirely proven out’. 

 So she concludes, a bit pessimistically, that, in the USA, ‘in the nuclear celebratory mood of the moment, there is little patience or political will for sober voices to discuss the reality that new nuclear power is actually many decades away from having any measurable impact on climate change – if at all’.

The situation in Europe is a bit different. Although nuclear is also being supported in some countries, like the UK and France, anti-nuclear views are also apparent. For example a recent academic paper in Joule claims that ‘relying on nuclear new-builds to achieve the EU climate targets is virtually impossible.’ And overall it concludes ‘in solving the climate crisis, new nuclear is a costly and dangerous distraction.’ Whereas SMRs will be any better is unclear. There are quite few speculative SMR ventures around the word, as a UK review noted, but a recent study of 19 proposed SMR designs found that they were likely to be generally more expensive than conventional nuclear, and even more so than renewables. So, why bother?

As Macfarlane says, the battle lines are drawn on this issue around the world, with much of it being a PR battle – there is no real hardware yet. While the likes of Forbes magazine are pushing SMRs as the ‘go-to energy source’, in a hard hitting article in Fortune, Stephanie Cookes says ‘the billions currently being spent on nuclear are crowding out viable, less costly solutions for decarbonizing the power sector.’ 

Place your bets…but, for some, the outcome already looks clear. As David Schlissel said in US trade journal Utility Drive, ‘an old adage is that anything that sounds too good to be true probably is. Given the history of the nuclear power industry, everyone – utilities, ratepayers, legislators, federal officials and the general public – should be very skeptical about the industry’s current claim the new SMRs will cost less and be built faster than previous designs.’

August 15, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment