See Image credits and description information in the Wilson Center article
LLAW’s NUCLEAR NEWS TODAY & THE IMPACT ON OUR FUTURE
Referring to the Russian attacks on Ukraine’s nuclear power facilities as “Terrorism” rather than “War: is interesting, especially considering that it’s what Ukraine is calling the nuclear power conflict aspect of the war in this Article . But the point is well-made here, regardless, and the term is probably a way to try to soften the implications of potential nuclear war for the USA and NATO while a new and volatile USA administration takes over the ultimate power of the West.
It may well be a verbal ruse to calm Trump’s tendency to ‘shoot from the hip’, but it won’t prevent him rom remaining on the wrong side of the actual war. Much of the weak Ukrainian war support from the USA cannot have been ignored by the softball method of the Biden administration, which boomeranged as a more weak western support operation than, no doubt, even Russia expected, However, the ‘unapproved’ missile strike by Ukraine into Russia’s belly has made the war an even greater nuclear threat from Russia’s leader.
But the word ‘terrorism’ itself is the kind of conflict that invites a different style of ‘war — one that any country or even a territory can play. And that could increase the world’s attacks on nuclear power plants everywhere, including the USA, no matter the eventual outcome of the real Russia/Ukraine war regardless of Trump’s future influence on Putin.
In any case, Ukraine, and therefore the entire free world, is in jeopardy of losing or maintaining their democracies or republics, allowing authoritarian governments to increase global terrorism in a world-wide movement to control nuclear power as a way to subjugate the masses even moreso than they already are. And financial greed, along with control of both nuclear power facilities and uranium (nuclear fuel) that could become more valuable than gold or paper money because a whole new industry has become the new pillar of global wealth and ‘the bomb’ is right there beside the cash to keep the rest of us quiet and nervously content. Trump’s new administration will fit right in . . . ~llaw
Russian Energy Terrorism Poses Significant Threats in the Short and Long Term If Not Stopped
After more than two months in which Ukrainians enjoyed an unrestricted electricity supply, on November 17 Russia launched a “massive attack” on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. There is reason to believe that the Kremlin will continue to put pressure on Ukraine’s energy system this winter. But the West also faces severe consequences and should be gravely concerned about Russia’s energy terrorism.
The November 17 attack was the tenth large-scale attack on Ukraine’s energy system in 2024. The previous attack, on August 26, was the largest attack on Ukraine’s energy system in history. In between those two attacks, Russia carried out dozens of local strikes, primarily targeting power distribution facilities in front-line regions. The most recent wide-scale attack occurred on November 28.
As winter approaches, many are trying to guess what form Russia’s energy terrorism might take going forward, especially in view of a possible decrease in support from Ukraine’s allies next year. However, in this case, winter is not the only input into Russia’s strategic calculations. Russia plays a game that is long and broad, and increasingly transparently directed beyond Ukraine’s borders. How the West reacts—or fails to do so—is a major vector in the Kremlin’s planning.
Russia’s Motives in Conducting Energy Terror
Russian air strikes clearly aim beyond merely damaging Ukraine’s power infrastructure and economy. These attacks are probably linked to foreign political changes and are intended to sow panic among Ukrainians and disillusionment with the course of the war—perhaps enough to cause Ukraine to sue for peace.
Social media bots, believed to have been coordinated by Russians, were already calling for Ukraine to capitulate back in 2022. Russia has further pumped up disinformation efforts by putting it out that Russian attacks did not cause rolling blackouts, Kyiv did, because—according to the disinformation narrative – the government wanted to export more electricity to Europe at higher prices, and therefore restricted the power supply to Ukrainian housholds.to bring in more revenue. These false claims are similarly intended to fuel citizens’ anger against the government and divide Ukraine.
In the larger geopolitical picture, however, when planning these attacks, Russia almost assuredly considers foreign affairs and political developments, both domestic and abroad. Russia needs to undermine the West’s trust in Ukraine and the West’s belief that Ukraine can go on resisting.
The change in the U.S. administration will be the most significant foreign development that the Kremlin monitors in the coming months. Before Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025, Russians may seek to attack Ukraine’s power system severely enough to create the impression that the country is destined for ruin. In September, during the presidential race, Donald Trump said Ukraine had already been demolished. Any major attacks resulting in significant power cutoffs in Ukraine over the next two to three months could strengthen the erroneous impression that Ukraine is buckling and lead to a drop in Western aid—an eventuality the Kremlin would welcome.
For these several reasons, Russia is likely to intensify its attacks on Ukraine’s power system. After a pause, it has collected enough missiles, and winter attacks are more psychologically harmful to the population than summer attacks. The Kremlin has opportunity to further degrade the situation in Ukraine, but the moment the new U.S. administration comes to power will be telling. If the White House believes the situation in Ukraine to be hopeless, its actions in regard to Ukraine may favor Russia’s interests.
What If the West Fails to Act to Stop Russian Energy Aggression Against Ukraine?
A null reaction to Russia’s energy terrorism will not produce good results for the West either. Neglecting Russia’s energy terror can be expected to have immediate, direct results for the West and strengthen Russia strategically.
The greatest present hemispheric threat is a potential nuclear facility accident. Attacks on the transformer substations connecting Ukrainian nuclear power plants with the rest of the power system could lead to uncontrollable processes in the nuclear reactors. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, a key link in the power system, pose a growing concern over nuclear safety.
The Zaporizhzhia NPP is the most vulnerable, and the most worrisome. Europe’s largest NPP, it is located in Russian-controlled territory, and part of its grounds has been converted to a military base for Russian forces and for storage of explosives. The plant is connected to the Ukrainian grid and needs an uninterrupted power supply to maintain reactor cooling. Further attacks on or degradation of the plant would result in widespread blackouts.
Even European countries with good relations with the Kremlin will suffer from power outages in Ukraine caused by Russian air attacks. Hungary and Slovakia, for example, depend heavily on oil and gas transit from Russia through Ukraine and are not eager to see disruptions of Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
There should be no illusion that if Ukraine experiences blackouts, it will try to keep the oil and gas transit going instead of citing force majeure as a reason to halt such supplies.
How the Kremlin Views and Dares the West
If the West does not respond vigorously to stop the Kremlin’s energy terror, the Kremlin will perceive such restraint as a weakness and believe it is free to act similarly against other states in the future.
It’s likely the Kremlin already believes the West is weak. Russia still uses Western components to produce its missiles and drones, and Western components were detected in North Korean missiles used to attack Ukraine as well. So the Russian perception is that Ukraine’s allies may help repair the power system but are unable to clamp down sufficiently, through control of supply chains or third party-sales of components, to stop or reduce Russia’s ongoing energy attacks by cutting off supplies—perhaps the most efficient way to bring about a near-term reduction in attacks.
A lack of response from the West will, by default, cede Russia a free hand to attack the power systems of other states, especially those bordering Russia and Belarus. The West should not be surprised if some “unrecognized” drone attacks power stations in the European countries close to Russia and Belarus.
On a grim note, some European states may not view negatively waves of labor migration from Ukraine in the event of energy supply interruption. In the Czech Republic, for example, Ukrainian refugees contribute more money to the national economy than they receive in support. Germany, the EU country that has taken in the most Ukrainian refugees, encourages more to enter the labor force. Labor shortages in different countries mean that the arrival of Ukrainians from an energy-stricken country need not be viewed as a threat but as an opportunity.
By Constraining Russian Attacks, the West Bolsters Its Own Security
Force is the only language the Kremlin understands. Ukraine should be supported not only directly, with weapons and energy system supplies, but with effective restraint of Russia to prevent or reduce future attacks on the Ukrainian power systems. By taking that step and mounting something more than a null response, the West can take significant steps toward ensuring its own security and stability.
The opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author and do not reflect the views of the Kennan Institute.
Subscribed
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are two Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
Surging demand for AI has sparked a race to secure supplies of nuclear power … All Things with Kim Strassel · Potomac Watch Podcast · Foreign Edition …
All Things Considered · Today’s Schedule · All Radio Programs · Printable … NH News NuclearSeabrook Nuclear plantEnergyTransmissionElectricityelectric …
Given that conventional nuclear plants can be very challenging to site and permit, there’s been a lot of talk about installing small modular reactors …
LAW’s NUCLEAR NEWS TODAY & THE IMPACT ON OUR FUTURE
So, those who are wealthy enough or important enough believe they can go underground to survive, and perhaps some of the underground shelters could provide protection for a short time, but for how long is a short time begs the very question of survival — and even its meaning or definition.
An all out global nuclear WWIII would decimate the earth’s environment for years to come and would provide an inhospitable “Nuclear Winter” that could last for generations of humans, so, I have to wonder, why would anyone want to live in an underground nuclear shelter when most everything on the surface of planet Earth has been destroyed to mere rubble, including human and other species. Food and water resources would be gone, meaning that underground living at best would eventually be subject to death from starvation and related health issues.
I remember some of the concern and even the panic that prompted moving underground during the Cold War and particularly the Cuban missile crisis when we went through this same issue, but all but a few of of our species prepared to brace themselves by going about their lives in a ‘so what’ way, relying on “hope” that our respective “leaders” would come to their senses, and it happened that they did and there was no permanent harm done and life went on as normal.
Today’s danger of nuclear war is much greater than back then because there are more nations brandishing nuclear weapons of mass destruction this time around, but I don’t know that the level of our collective fear is any different than it was then. Perhaps that is partly because we are more psychologically conditioned to other ‘crucial’ or ‘critical’ demands on our time that we don’t seem to worry about such a thing as a nuclear World War III. ~llaw
Inside America’s Nuke-Proof Bunkers As Russian Threats Drive Demand
Published Dec 02, 2024 at 12:56 PM ESTUpdated Dec 02, 2024 at 1:33 PM EST
Fears that the Russia-Ukraine conflict may soon spiral into a global, nuclear confrontation have driven Americans’ interest in underground bunkers as a means of surviving future catastrophes.
While perhaps seen by many as a remnant of the Cold War, a market has emerged for modernized fallout shelters equipped with the amenities of a typical American home. Those in the bunker trade spoke to Newsweek about the industry’s latest trends, and the motivations driving their clients—including executives from listed U.S. companies—to plan for apocalyptic scenarios.
One such example is Survival Condo, a 15-storey, 20,000-square-foot bunker in northern Kansas capable of housing and sustaining 75 individuals for over five years. Refashioned from a decommissioned government missile silo, which the company says was designed to “survive a direct nuclear strike,” Survival Condo assures its clients that they will enjoy unrivaled protection from any future disaster on American shores.
Larry Hall is the owner of Survival Condo, having purchased the silo in 2008 for $300,000, and told Newsweek that interest in his business often piques in response to significant global events. “We see periodic increases in the interest level for our bunkers that mirror world concerns,” Hall said. “COVID was a good example and during the past nine months the election and specific global hot spots support that observation.”
Hall said that traffic on his site had risen over the past few months—”nuclear” emerging as one of the most searched terms—and chalked this up to the Ukrainian conflict. The primary concern expressed by prospective clients, he said, was “the fear of Putin escalating the war with Ukraine by using tactical nuclear weapons.”
Cory Hubbard is the co-owner of DEFCON Underground Mfg., a company specializing in underground bunkers and bomb shelters for clients across America.
Like Hall, Hubbard said that interest in the company had spiked as a result of the Russia-Ukraine war. “When the Ukraine war first started I’d say call volume went up several [hundred] percent,” Hubbard told Newsweek, adding that there was also a noticeable uptick “whenever Putin mentioned nuclear anything.”
However, he said that interest in the company’s shelters tended to increase alongside any kind of “big world event,” and that customers may be seeking a shelter for numerous reasons besides war with Russia.
As the online forums of self-described preppers make clear, bunkers and other disaster-related provisions are not reserved solely for end-of-the-world scenarios, and may be made in anticipation of extreme weather events, domestic political upheaval, or another world-halting pandemic, events collectively referred to by the community with the acronym SHTF—scenarios in which “s*** hits the fan.”
Aside from protection against Russian nukes, Hall said that Survival Condo’s prospective customers were also motivated to seek his services by the possibility of a conflict between Israel and Iran, tensions between China and Taiwan, fears over domestic terrorism by “undocumented migrants,” as well as the possibility of another pandemic sweeping the country.
Hall is preparing to open another facility in Tescott, Kansas, which promises to offer protection against everything from solar flares and meteor storms to civil unrest and deadly pandemics. His company also offers custom bunker designs for those hoping for a nuke-proof shelter of their own, rather than the flagship condominium facility.
With price tags in the millions, Hall admits that his company’s luxury offerings are “not for everyone,” but told Newsweek that Survival Condo had been approached by several notable, affluent individuals and groups seeking security against whatever the future may hold.
“One interesting development is that we have had an increase in inquiries from some tightly held companies that have expressed the desire for a complete facility for their company,” Hall said. “The requests are for a hybrid design, nuclear-hardened bunker that would have several floors for a backup data center and luxury living quarters for the company owners.”
While he could not disclose the specific companies in question, Hall said that several such requests came from “crypto and crypto mining” firms, some of which are publicly traded.
“Most people just call looking for a bunker and need to have things explained to them,” Hubbard said of his clientele. “There is a lot that goes into how and why the shelters are made and designed. Most people have no idea what it actually takes.”
Besides food and supplies to outlast whatever disaster has swept the country, he said that many underestimate what is needed for a truly nuke-proof bunker.
“Fallout shelters or actual bomb shelters typically require four to six feet of dirt on top of them to handle the radiation from a nuclear blast,” he said, adding that entrances to these shelters must also be designed “with certain angles” to protect against radiation.
A classroom located inside Survival Condo. Survival Condo’s owner, Larry Hall, said that one of the benefits of the condominium facility was the ability to interact with other families and individuals. Survival Condo Projects
Hall said an underappreciated aspect of his company’s fallout shelter was the communal aspect and the daunting, alternative prospect of outlasting a calamity with only a handful of individuals by your side.
As well as the mandatory provisions—redundant sources of electricity and water and medical supplies—Survival Condo offers an indoor spa, pool and workout facility, as well as a theatre and classroom for adults and children to mingle in the post-disaster period. Hall said that clients found these luxuries particularly beneficial during the pandemic, as many sought refuge in the bunker.
“COVID was a test case that our existing owners told me that they underestimated the benefit of being able to have conversations with other adults about the global situation and to bounce ideas with,” Hall said. “Most of our clients have children, and the ability of the kids to all play together during COVID in our protected environment was a huge plus for the parents.”
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
Suddenly it was all about emergency deployments to Germany. … Nuclear retaliation is not quite the same as nuclear warfighting, but it deploys all the …
While perhaps seen by many as a remnant of the Cold War, a market has emerged for modernized fallout shelters equipped with the amenities of a typical …
The threat they pose is immediate and real. It leaves us to grapple with the central truth of the nuclear age: The sole way for humanity to survive is .
By now, he has made so many threats to do so that most observers believe he has just been bluffing. Putin’s most recent threat came in response to the …
It is not surprising then that ideas about impending disaster, nuclear war or collapse, whether financial, economic, environmental or societal, all of …
They will do little to turn the tide of the war. So why are we taking the chance? “Like many Russia-watchers”, I believe the nuclear threats are empty …
LLAW’s NUCLEAR NEWS TODAY & THE IMPACT ON OUR FUTURE
Our nuclear-armed world leaders are quickly losing whatever s left of their minds about the possibility and even probability of nuclear war exterminating life on planet Earth. You really mean the USA is or was actually considering providing Ukraine with nuclear weapons in order to “deter” Russia from continuing its non-nuclear missiles. We actually believe that would work? For more than one day? Fight fire with a bigger fire? How stupid are we? How self-aggrandizing are our power-addicted leaders?
Why would any world leader and their political and military stooges think that escalating war is a way to avoid nuclear war — especially in today’s nuclear world? Yet, according to this truncated story, such a plan is or was considered as a way to avoid additional non-nuclear missile attacks on Ukraine and its nuclear power plants. As I wrote yesterday, Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian citizens in such a way as this is a war crime as well as a ‘crime against humanity’. Humanity has, apparently, lost track of what the word ‘crime’ even means —Trump’s reelection proves that — but also as well as a definition for “humanity”. Such words as ‘peace’, ‘forgiveness’, ‘friendship’, ‘care’, ‘heart’, ‘kindness’, ‘love’, and most of all, if only, ‘empathy’ come to mind.
In today’s worlds of old and all the way up until today mankind has fought tooth and nail, but with the advent of nuclear weapons and nuclear power, we cannot continue fighting to settle our differences. There is only only one way to solve our insane global hatred problem to survive as a species, and that is to actually universally unite as the humanitarian, peaceful, and considerate human beings that we only “pretend” to be today . . . ~llaw
China Warns of Nuclear War Risk in Ukraine
Published Nov 29, 2024 at 9:47 AM EST
00:52
Biden Admin Calls On Ukraine To Lower Draft Age To Boost Military Ranks
China has renewed its warnings over the potential use of nuclear weapons in the Russia-Ukraine war, in response to recent speculation about the possibility of the U.S. stationing them in the embattled country to deter future Russian aggression.
“China is paying close attention to the nuclear risks triggered by the Ukraine crisis and has reiterated time and again that nuclear weapons should not be used and nuclear war must not be fought,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said during Thursday’s regular press conference.
She’d been asked to respond to last week’s New York Times report citing anonymous U.S. officials who floated returning nuclear weapons to Ukraine as part of discussions on deterring a third Russian invasion after an eventual negotiated ceasefire.
Damaged cars in the courtyard of a destroyed building after a missile attack in Odesa, Ukraine. China has denounced any nuclear escalation in the Ukraine-Russia war. Oleksandr Gimanov/AFP via Getty Images
Ukraine once inherited the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, including approximately 1,900 strategic warheads, following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Kyiv agreed to relinquish these weapons in exchange for security assurances from the U.S., U.K., and Russia.
“Under the current circumstances, all parties need to remain calm and exercise restraint,” Mao said. “Joint efforts are needed to cool down the situation through dialogue and consultation to reduce strategic risks.”
Newsweek reached out to Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department with written requests for comment.
China has sought to position itself as a neutral player in the Ukraine conflict, now in its 33rd month. However, the country has consistently avoided labeling Russia’s 2022 invasion as such and has provided Moscow with substantial economic and diplomatic support.
Trade with its northern neighbor and purchases of Russian oil and gas have soared. Meanwhile, Beijing has amplified the Kremlin’s narratives while censoring anti-war criticism of Vladimir Putin on Chinese social media platforms.
China has also deepened military cooperation and diplomatic ties with the Kremlin, framing the relationship as a counterweight to U.S.-led global dominance.
The Biden administration’s recent decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S.-provided Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to strike targets within Russian territory has reignited fears of escalation.
However, analysts have argued that the risk of a nuclear response from Russia is overstated.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’a ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
By now, he has made so many threats to do so that most observers believe he has just been bluffing. Putin’s most recent threat came in response to the ..
The concerns faded for some officials as Putin did not act on his threats … nuclear force or other deadly tactics outside the war zone.
IAEA Weekly News
29 November 2024
The 2024 IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Science, Technology and Applications and the Technical Cooperation Programme got underway in Vienna, Austria, this week. Read the top updates and stories published on IAEA.org.
An IAEA team of experts has concluded an International Physical Protection Advisory Service mission in Zimbabwe. The mission, conducted at the request of the Government of Zimbabwe, took place from 18 November to 29 November 2024. Read more →
Ukraine’s three operating nuclear power plants (NPPs) reduced their electricity generation this morning following renewed attacks on the country’s energy infrastructure that further endangered nuclear safety during the military conflict, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said. Read more →
IAEA Member States have adopted a declaration recognizing the important role of nuclear science, technology and applications in addressing current and evolving global challenges. The declaration was unanimously adopted at the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Science, Technology and Applications and the Technical Cooperation Programme in Vienna this morning. Read more →
Nuclear science and technology play a significant role in improving the lives and well-being of people worldwide, especially in the fields of health, food and agriculture and the environment. Read more →
The 2024 Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Science, Technology and Applications and the Technical Cooperation Programme will take place on 26-28 November 2024 at the IAEA’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria. Read more →
See Al Jazeera article below for description of image and photo credits.
LLAW’s NUCLEAR NEWS TODAY & THE IMPACT ON OUR FUTURE
Some say, “all is fair in love and war; other’s say attacking civilians in war is a violation of International Laws. This attack on Ukraine by Russia, as well as many others, leaves little doubt that Russia is violating international and other laws against humanity, but who is going to do anything about it? The answer, of course, is nobody.
According to Ukraine’s military and ministry, this is the 11th attack this year on civilian electric power sources, and a million people are said to be without power from this latest missile barrage from Russia.
The following is from the article:
Breach of international law . . .
“The ministry said it was the 11th massive Russian attack on Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure this year.
Catriona Murdoch, director of the starvation and humanitarian crisis division of Global Rights Compliance, an international human rights foundation, said Russia was breaching international law with attacks on the energy system.
“Russia’s systematic attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure are not just acts of war – they are crimes that deliberately target and terrify the civilian population, leaving millions vulnerable,” she said in a statement sent to Al Jazeera.
“[The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants] in relation to such attacks on energy during the winter of 2022, perpetrators must be held accountable for this second wave of attacks which are a violation of international law,” Murdoch added.”
So it is, as I see it, that nuclear power plants are part of nuclear war, as the Russia/Ukraine war has demonstrated multiple times. There has also been an attack by Ukraine’s military on a nuclear power plant in Russia, which must fit into this same International Law.
Mankind’s inhumanity to mankind must somehow be stopped forever if mankind is to survive, but there is no power except humanity itself to end this never-ending inhumane world-wide treatment of ourselves. We need help from somewhere unknown if we are to survive and it certainly will never come from our political and military leaders of the nuclear-armed countries around the world . . . ~llaw
Putin threatens Ukraine with new missile as Russian barrage hits power grid
Russian missile attacks have been reported across Ukraine, with emergency power outages affecting more than one million people amid freezing temperatures.
Ukraine analyses new Russian missile wreckage as Moscow threatens to escalate conflict
Published On 28 Nov 202428 Nov 2024
Updated:
8 hours ago
President Vladimir Putin has said 100 drones and 90 missiles were launched at Ukraine over the past two days “in response to strikes deep” inside Russia as he threatened to hit Kyiv with a new missile.
Putin was addressing a meeting of a security alliance of former Soviet countries in Kazakhstan’s capital, Astana, on Thursday after Ukraine said Russian missiles targeted its power infrastructure.
He also addressed Russia’s use of the Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile last week on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro.
Putin told the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) summit that Russia has begun serial production of the nuclear-capable weapon, and the Ministry of Defence was currently selecting more targets in Ukraine for strikes with the new missile.
Those targets could include “decision-making centres” in Kyiv in response to Ukrainian long-range strikes on Russian territory with Western weapons, he added.
In the event of a massive use of the Oreshnik, the force of the strike “will be comparable to nuclear weapons”, he threatened.
A State Emergency Service member checks part of an intercepted Russian cruise missile in an unknown location in Ukraine [Handout/Press service of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine via Reuters]
Ukraine’s Energy Minister German Galushchenko said on Thursday that the country’s power infrastructure came “under massive enemy attack” prompting the national power grid’s operator to introduce emergency power cuts amid freezing temperatures.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the attack a “despicable escalation”, accusing Russia of using cluster munitions.
“In several regions, strikes with cluster munitions were recorded, and they targeted civilian infrastructure,” he said in a post on Telegram. “This is a very despicable escalation of Russian terrorist tactics.”
“This is especially important in winter when we have to protect our infrastructure from targeted Russian attacks,” Zelenskyy added.
Cluster munitions have killed or wounded more than 1,000 people in Ukraine since Russia launched its all-out war in February 2022, the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) said in its annual report in September.
They also pose a long-term risk since many fail to explode on impact, effectively acting as landmines that can explode years later, the CMC noted.
Russia and Ukraine are not among the 112 states that are party to the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, which bans the use, transfer, production and storage of cluster bombs.
A girl stands next to her house damaged by a Russian missile strike on the outskirts of Odesa, Ukraine [Nina Liashonok/Reuters]
Reporting from Kharkiv, Al Jazeera’s Assed Baig said the attack seems to be Russia’s “largest in recent months”.
“The Ukrainian air defences have been in action to intercept some of those missiles, but there are reports of residential buildings being hit in Kharkiv as well as debris falling in areas of the capital, Kyiv,” he said.
Ukraine’s air force said Russia fired 91 missiles and 97 attack drones, adding that 79 of the missiles and 35 of the drones were intercepted.
At least some of the weapons hit their targets, Ukrainian officials said.
“Power facilities in several regions were damaged,” the Ukrenergo national power grid electricity operator said, adding that it had introduced emergency blackouts across the country.
Authorities in the Lviv and Kyiv regions said critical infrastructure sites had been hit.
People take shelter inside a metro station during a Russian military attack in Kyiv, Ukraine [Alina Smutko/Reuters]
There have been power outages in Kyiv, Odesa, Dnipro and Donetsk regions, according to Ukrenergo, as temperatures across the country dropped to about 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit).
The CEO of the Yasno energy supplier, Serhii Kovalenko, subsequently said there were emergency blackouts all over the country because of the attacks.
More than a million customers in Ukraine’s west, hundreds of kilometres from the front lines, were without power.
“As of now, 523,000 subscribers in Lviv region are without electricity,” chief of the western region, Maksym Kozytskyi, said on social media.
Regional officials said at least 280,000 others were cut off in the western Rivne region and another 215,000 in the northwestern Volyn region, which also borders Poland, a European Union and NATO member.
“Power engineers are working to ensure backup power supply schemes where possible. They have already started restoration work where the security situation allows,” the Ministry of Energy said.
Breach of international law
The ministry said it was the 11th massive Russian attack on Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure this year.
Catriona Murdoch, director of the starvation and humanitarian crisis division of Global Rights Compliance, an international human rights foundation, said Russia was breaching international law with attacks on the energy system.
“Russia’s systematic attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure are not just acts of war – they are crimes that deliberately target and terrify the civilian population, leaving millions vulnerable,” she said in a statement sent to Al Jazeera.
“[The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants] in relation to such attacks on energy during the winter of 2022, perpetrators must be held accountable for this second wave of attacks which are a violation of international law,” Murdoch added.
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’a ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
Nuclear has been a big topic lately. The Biden administration wants to triple nuclear … Heard on All Things Considered. Nuclear energy may be seeing a …
All Things Considered. Next Up: 6:00 PM World Cafe. 0:00. 0:00. All Things … WOODS: Even if Mike’s company Kairos does succeed in eventually building …
The concerns faded for some officials as Putin did not act on his threats but remained central to how many in the administration weighed decisions on …
LLAW’s NUCLEAR NEWS TODAY & THE IMPACT ON OUR FUTURE
Why do we continue to delve into energy solutions that we don’t understand and some, like nuclear fusion, have long been scientific experiments, most all negatively unsuccessful that can’t possibly be in a “Race Against Time” that will save us from fossil fuels if we continue to demand more electrical power all around the globe. Our nuclear power plants (that operate on a much simpler process called ‘fission’) are not going to solve the fossil fuel problem either because we are also grasping for uranium fuel (which is, in the geological science, a fossil fuel, too, and though nuclear fission not only produces small amounts of greenhouse gasses and uranium mining, milling, and refining are well-known polluters, it all ads up to dealing with nuclear waste and, even worse, radiation — the most dangerous natural resource of them all. Have not nuclear bombs and the looming potential of nuclear war proven that to mankind? I guess not, but I do not understand why not . . .
So there is, logically, no “race” to save humanity from our own greedy power-starved electrical world to save us from our own ‘race’ to eventual extinction. That is, if nuclear war doesn’t do us in first. The only ‘race’ among fusion’s experimental scientific laboratories would be to see who creates successful fusion first, which may never happen for all kinds of reasons. But as “Popular Mechanics” and author Caroline Delbert points out quite well, we maybe wasting our available collective time. ~llaw
In the Race Against Time for Fusion, a New Reactor May Break the Final Barrier
Still, the hope of limitless energy clashes with the realities of scientific hurdles.
The science news ecosystem repeats unfounded claims about nuclear fusion.
OpenStar’s reactor has an unusual design, but it’s just as unproven as all the others.
Their reactor has a central magnet inside a sphere of plasma, instead of a traditional donut.
A recent spate of nuclear fusion announcements have covered an emerging fusion reactor in New Zealand. The company behind this reactor, OpenStar, claims to have the only viable path to producing energy using nuclear fusion in the near future.
Their unusual design comes from a 20-year-old experiment that began at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). But nuclear fusion has become a very crowded house, and almost all the startups are linked with prestigious universities like this. Is OpenStar’s idea really going to break through the noise? We don’t have enough information yet, and repeating these claims does not help science.
The kernel of news from New Zealand-based OpenStar is that their experimental reactor, named Junior, has achieved first plasma. To be clear, this is not a step toward producing energy using nuclear fusion—it’s almost the opposite. All fusion reactors require an extraordinary amount of construction and power before they can predictably turn a cloud of (usually hydrogen) gas into a hydrogen plasma. This involves electrical current, powerful electromagnets, and so on.
First plasma, as a milestone, only shows that your fusion reactor was constructed and plugged in correctly. There are countless more milestones that need to be hit on the way to energy production, and OpenStar promises these in the next six years. But along the way, they’re not opposed to celebrating milestones equivalent to kindergarten in a school where no student has made it even to ninth grade—nor are they alone in doing so. Fusion companies do this all the time, and the echo chamber of fusion news sites repeats the story, often just rephrasing a press release and repeating claims without the context that there have been a dozen similar claims in the last five years.
So, what makes OpenStar different within this crowded and echoing field? That, at least, has a concrete answer. It’s all in the shape. Most of the active fusion reactor experiments around the world are tokamaks, but OpenStar’s is not. A tokamak is a toroidal (donut-shaped) chamber where a stream of plasma is held in place (and away from the walls of the tokamak) by electromagnets. As plasma is heated, it becomes too hot for traditional containers and materials to hold it, so the magnetic fields keep it contained. Those magnetic fields also keep the plasma as condensed as possible to encourage the charged atoms to fuse.
IEEE Spectrum recently reported on OpenStar’s choice to “ditch the traditional doughnut-shaped design.” Instead of a surrounding structure of magnets, their design has one central magnet and an overall spherical shape. That magnet must be a superconductor for the design to work, and for that to function as necessary, it must be chilled to near absolute zero using ongoing and expensive equipment. For their demonstration, they precooled the magnet to ensure an 80-minute window of operability before it grew too warm—something that likely won’t be practical when using a fusion reactor to produce energy, when the cost of bringing the reactor down from fusion temperature and back up again could cost many thousands of dollars in labor, electricity, and other resources.
That central magnet—which the team at OpenStar says will include batteries in order to help it function longer—sits in the midst of a plasma stream that will reach over 100 million degrees Celsius. If all of this works (which is an enormous, unproven “if”), the design of the reactor has the potential to be more efficient and powerful than tokamak designs.
But, again, none of this has ever worked. Everyone’s timelines and milestones are still speculation.
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’a ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
He continued, “Yet I must comment on the nonsense: 1) The very threat of transferring nuclear weapons to the Kyiv regime can be considered preparation .
LLAW’s NUCLEAR NEWS TODAY & THE IMPACT ON OUR FUTURE
As I keep saying every chance I get, the whole world — perhaps excluding the American voters and other influencers who put Trump back in office for a 2nd presidential term — are extremely nervous about Trump’s entire political, military, and economic agenda, but particularly his questionable concepts about ‘all things nuclear’ (including nuclear war) and the extremely sensitive handling of the Russia/Ukraine war related to his political and personal relationship with Putin right out of the gate for starters.
We are now less than two months away from Trump’s inauguration day, and the few days between now and then are very important days because the whole Russia/Ukraine and potential nuclear conflict must be avoided both now and after Trump takes office and we all know that Trump is a loose cannon if nothing else.
So it is, that whenever I run across a responsible media story directed at this world- wide apparent ‘vacuum’ in time, I am inclined to post the story for us all here to read and evaluate before Trump is given a free pass to the possibility of nuclear war . . . ~llaw
Putin’s strategy in Ukraine ahead of Trump’s return
Ian Bremmer
Nov 25, 2024
Ian Bremmer’s Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here, and a Quick Take to kick off your week. Want to talk about the Russia-Ukraine War. We are seeing further escalation over the course of the last week. The United States and the United Kingdom and France have all given permission after months of foot dragging for the Ukrainians to use their missiles, these missiles provided by the NATO allies, to target military targets inside the Russian Federation.
Putin has been warning them not to do that. They decided they were going to, the Russian response has been to formally change their nuclear doctrine so that they would be considered to be in a state of war legally against any country that allowed Ukraine to use their missiles against Russia. In other words, essentially, Russia is claiming that they’re now at war with France, with the UK, with the United States. And also, the Russians used a medium range missile hypersonic nuclear capable directly against the Ukrainian target in Dnipro.
In other words, what we’re seeing from Putin is, “I’m showing you what you’re doing is moving towards World War III, and that’s how I’m responding.” Does that mean that Putin is actually escalating towards direct war with NATO allies? The answer to that is no. He wasn’t doing that when he was losing the battle in Ukraine in the early months. He’s certainly not doing it now that he’s winning.
And he is winning. He has more troops on the front lines, including those from North Korea, those from Yemen, those that he’s getting from other countries. Also, he’s taking more territory on the ground in Ukraine at a faster pace now, more significant amounts of territory in Southeast Ukraine than at any point since the opening months of the war. Plus Trump is President-elect. Trump has said, “I want to end this war.” And he is coming in just in a couple of months.
So what Putin is doing is not threatening World War III. He’s instead showing off just how bad this Biden policy is, this existing NATO policy is. He’s making it easier for Trump to pivot away and say, “I’m the peacemaker. We were heading towards World War III, this horrible escalation. I’m the guy that got the great deal done and look how brilliant I am.” Putin is facilitating that.
Now, of course, to make that happen Trump still has to give Putin something that he wants. He has to give an outcome that is acceptable to Putin. And Putin’s made clear, at least thus far, that he’s not going to give up any territory that he has. That he’s not prepared to accept that Ukraine would be able to join NATO. He’s also said that Ukraine can’t continue to have a functional armed forces which is something that would be completely unacceptable to Ukraine.
The devil’s going to be in the details here. There clearly is an opportunity for Trump to end the war. He’s promised he’s going to end the war, and I think he can. I think he can create a ceasefire. The Ukrainian leadership has already made clear that they are supportive of ending the war, but they’re not just going to listen. There has to be a back and forth conversation with the Americans. Seeing what it is that Trump is prepared to put forward, and whether or not the Russians are capable of accepting it, are willing to accept it. Even though it will look like a win for Russia compared to where they would’ve been under Biden, under Harris, or at any other point in the last couple of years.
Still, if you are Putin, there is an open question. You’re taking land right now. The Ukrainians don’t have the people to continue to put up a strong defense. Why wouldn’t you delay this out for another three, another six months? Take more land. Try to get all the territory that you have formally annexed over the course of the war. Why not settle the war on your terms? A lot easier to do if you’re winning than losing. And the question there will be to what extent Trump is willing to cause material punishment to Putin if he doesn’t say yes.
And that’s an open question. Trump historically has been willing to take easy wins that don’t necessarily play well over the long term. Look at Afghanistan. He wanted to get the Americans out. He cut a deal with the Taliban. It was a deal that was clearly very advantageous from a military and from a governance perspective for the Taliban than it was for the United States. He cut that despite the fact that the allies were not supportive or coordinating. That undermined the US deeply. Biden then continued with that plan. And it was one of the biggest losses that the US has experienced over the last four years.
Now, that of course, was a loss that ultimately fell on Biden. This would be a loss that would ultimately fall on Trump. And so does he want to risk that? That’s a very interesting question. And of course, you also have to look at Trump’s staff because he can make a phone call with Zelensky and with Putin, but ultimately, it is the secretary of state, the national security advisor and others that are going to have to work out the details of that agreement. And those people, at least thus far, are not people that are oriented towards giving away the store to Putin. They’re people-oriented towards mistrust of Putin, towards a hard line against the Russians, towards support of Ukraine.
I am thinking here that number one, there’s a reasonably high chance that Trump can get the win that he wants, but number two, this isn’t likely to be a walk in the park for the Russian president. The Europeans need to play here as well. And what will be important, there’s been a few formulated conversations thus far between President-elect Trump and some of the European leaders.
They haven’t gone very far, but they’ve also not blown up the bilateral relationships. Their ability to work with Trump advisors on Trump, and on a greater coordination of what an ultimate solution or settlement of the Russian-Ukraine war would be, will make a dramatic difference as to what extent this is sustainable. To what extent this leads to not only Ukraine that can continue to defend itself and the territory that it is left with, but also can integrate into Europe, can be politically successful as a democracy over time. And that NATO will stay strong and stay together and stay aligned with the United States because they don’t have another choice. There is no autonomous European military capacity. It’s either NATO sticks together or it fragments.
Those are all things that we’re going to watch very carefully over the course of the next couple months. But for now, an escalatory period. And it’s all performative and it’s all oriented towards what happens when Trump becomes president. That’s it for me, and I’ll talk to you all real soon.
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’a ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
They decided they were going to, the Russian response has been to formally change their nuclear … Those are all things that we’re going to watch very …
… Nuclear Power Plant in west Michigan, according to a federal official. The issue prompted some nuclear safety advocates to question whether the plant …
Gianmarco Buono and his team took a closer look at The Phlegraean Fields, a large caldera volcano west of Naples, Italy. … Yellowstone, Long Valley in …
The following article is somewhat lengthy , but full of interesting informative graphics, is an opinionated look at what nuclear war might be like to a typical human population area like the United States, for example. There is some valuable information and some not so useful, but for those of you who have not been subjected to the concepts of nuclear war, including a “nuclear winter” (of which the future brutality would actually depend on the sized of a nuclear world war). The same is true about how whom and what may survive such a war.
For instance, an all out nuclear World War III would decimate the entire planet and few of us would ever need the recommended ‘checklist’ of personal needs to live on after the war . . .
So as you read this worthwhile article, and if should pique your interest and concerns, there is a whole world of information in this blog and out there in the media everywhere to add to your understanding of both nuclear war and nuclear power, which is fast becoming related to the useable concepts of nuclear war in the event of any nuclear war — including the future tactics in the present situation in the Russia/Ukraine war (which now threatens both the United States and other NATO nations), that could result in the final war to end all wars . . . ~llaw
90 seconds to midnight. Things you need to know about nuclear war and its ramifications
The 1,000-day threshold in the Russian-Ukrainian war was marked by several events that increased the likelihood of nuclear war. For the first time, Ukraine used Western ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles to hit targets on Russia’s internationally recognized territory. The Kremlin responded by unveiling an updated nuclear doctrine featuring lowered requirements for the use of nuclear weapons — and for the first time, it attacked Ukraine using an intercontinental ballistic missile (or its medium-range counterpart) capable of carrying a special warhead. The Insider explains what nuclear war and its aftermath could look like, as well as how and where to escape it — before it’s too late.
‘Nuclear weapons’ is an umbrella term for explosive devices that employ the fusion or fission of atomic nuclei to generate energy for the blast. Weapons referred to as ‘nuclear’ use the energy generated by the fission of heavy nuclei, such as uranium-235 and plutonium-239. Thermonuclear weapons (often referred to as “the hydrogen bomb”) are based on the fusion of light nuclei — the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium.
Nuclear weapons have enormous destructive power, usually measured in kilotons and megatons of TNT equivalent — that is, in thousands and millions of metric tons of explosives. To compare, the Russian Kh-101 cruise missile that hit the Ohmatdyt Children’s Hospital in Kyiv this past July carries a warhead of only 400 kilograms.
A nuclear strike has a solid kill zone spanning dozens of kilometers. If dropped on a densely populated area, a nuclear bomb could claim millions of lives and irrevocably destroy all infrastructure.
A nuclear strike has a solid kill zone spanning dozens of kilometers
Nuclear powers possess intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, aerial nuclear bombs, and tactical nuclear warheads (delivered by cruise missiles, artillery shells, and low-yield aerial bombs).
Strategic nuclear forces combine three components: land-based (missile forces), naval (nuclear-powered submarines with ballistic missiles), and airborne (strategic bombers). All three components together are referred to as the nuclear triad.
Who has nuclear weapons?
Nine countries in the world possess a total of 12,121 nuclear warheads, with only 3,804 deployed. All permanent members of the UN Security Council — Russia, the United States, China, the UK, and France — have deployed strategic nuclear warheads. The U.S. and Russia hold 88% of the weapons. A nuclear triad is possessed by the United States, Russia, and, presumably, China.
Several countries once had nuclear arsenals but gave them up. Among them are apartheid-era South Africa (whose weapons were eliminated before the democratization and transfer of power to the black majority in the early 1990s), and also Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan (each of which received a share of the Soviet nuclear arsenal after the collapse of the USSR, but then either destroyed the warheads or transferred them to Russia with the assistance of international mediators, primarily the United States).
Several countries, including Ukraine, used to possess nuclear weapons but have given them up
Since the American nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, nuclear weapons are believed to have played a deterrent role in international relations, preventing a direct military clash between members of the nuclear club and thus foreclosing the possibility of a new world war. In the bipolar world of the Cold War era, the concept of deterrence defined relations between the two superpowers: the Soviet Union and the United States. Deterrence is based on the notions of mutual assured destruction (MAD) and nuclear parity: the approximate equality of nuclear potentials and the inevitable response in the event of a first strike make the conflict pointless (at least in theory), since both sides would simply end up destroying each other.
Nuclear parity is generally maintained today: Russia and the United States possess almost the same number of deployed nuclear warheads for strategic carriers, although when it comes to tactical-class warheads, the Russian stockpile is much larger. In addition, the architecture of existing air and missile defense areas in Russia and the United States is believed to provide sufficient protection for political decision-making centers — and for the nuclear-tipped missile launch positions under their command — to respond in the event of an attack. In other words, in the event of a nuclear war, both countries would have ample time and opportunity to use their entire arsenal to retaliate.
One has to admit, however, that nuclear weapons have not made the planet a safe place: during the Cold War, the confrontation between the superpowers took other forms, with numerous localized proxy conflicts breaking out in remote regions. Furthermore, today the concept of deterrence does nothing to thwart new threats like cyberattacks or disinformation campaigns.
How many times have nuclear weapons been used?
Combat use of nuclear weapons, as we know, occurred only twice: on Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, 1945, when American forces dropped nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As for test explosions, there have been more than 2,000 since Jul. 16, 1945: 1,030 of them were conducted by the United States and 715 by the Soviet Union. In the 21st century, North Korea remains the only country conducting nuclear tests.
The most powerful thermonuclear explosion — 58.6 megatons — was registered during the test of the AN 602 Tsar Bomba in 1961 on the Novaya Zemlya archipelago. The flash was visible at a distance of 1,000 kilometers, and the resulting mushroom cloud rose to a height of 67.3 kilometers — visible from 800 kilometers. The seismic wave caused by the blast circled the globe three times. Buildings in a village on Dikson Island, 780 kilometers away from the test site, had their windows blown out.
Who can decide to launch a nuclear strike and how do they go about it?
The procedure for using nuclear weapons varies from country to country. In the UK, the Prime Minister gives the order, but if the military commanders are unsure about carrying it out, they can appeal directly to the commander-in-chief — the ruling monarch.
In France and the U.S., the relevant powers are in the hands of the presidents. In Pakistan and India, strikes can be launched by special collective bodies.
In China, the decision to launch a nuclear strike falls under the purview of the Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Military personnel in command centers are supposed to receive two separate orders: from the Central Military Commission and from the country’s Joint Staff Department.
In Russia, the decision is made by the president. According to various reports, a nuclear strike requires a chain-of-command order that involves five to seven people, from the president down to the operators on duty in command centers. The Minister of Defense and the Chief of the General Staff, who, like the President, have “nuclear briefcases” with launch codes, participate in the process, as do liaison officers. Launch is only possible if codes are entered on at least two of the three briefcases.
In Russia, the decision to use nuclear weapons is made by the president
The principles of nuclear weapons use are described in program documents of military planning, military doctrines, and national security strategies.
Russia’s nuclear doctrine, officially referred to as “Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence,” was adopted on Nov. 19, 2024. It provides for five cases in which the use of nuclear weapons is permitted. Some of the scenarios do not involve a nuclear attack from an enemy state. These are:
(a) The receipt of reliable information about the launch of ballistic missiles attacking the territories of the Russian Federation and (or) its allies.
b) The use by the enemy of nuclear or other types of weapons of mass destruction against the territories of the Russian Federation and (or) its allies, against military formations and (or) facilities of the Russian Federation located outside its territory.
c) The enemy’s impact on critical state or military facilities of the Russian Federation, the disabling of which would disrupt the response of nuclear forces.
d) Military aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) the Republic of Belarus as members of the Union State with the use of conventional weapons that creates a critical threat to their sovereignty and (or) territorial integrity.
e) The receipt of reliable information about the massive launch (take-off) of aerospace attack means (strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, unmanned, hypersonic, and other aircraft) and their crossing of the state border of the Russian Federation.
There are no reliable criteria for determining a “critical threat to sovereignty and territorial integrity” or the “massive” launch of enemy missiles or aircraft.
What makes nuclear war so dangerous?
The detonation of a nuclear warhead causes a powerful shock wave, light radiation, and direct ionizing radiation. It is also accompanied by a radioactive pulse and a powerful electromagnetic pulse that disables electronics.
An attack on cities with high-rise buildings would produce devastating fire tornadoes that would scorch even reinforced concrete and earth, not to mention human flesh.
A nuclear explosion would scorch even reinforced concrete and earth, not to mention human flesh
For example, a strike on Moscow with a 350-kiloton W78 thermonuclear warhead for the LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM would have an impact radius bordering on 14 kilometers, would kill about 620,000 people, and injure almost 2.5 million.
Here you can create a simulation of a nuclear attack in different places on the planet.
For a long time, the most dangerous ramifications of the large-scale use of nuclear weapons were considered to be catastrophic climate effects known as “nuclear fall” and “nuclear winter.”
Will there be a “nuclear winter”?
In the early 1980s, scientists concluded that even a limited nuclear conflict would release enough dust, smoke, and soot into the atmosphere to stop the sun’s rays from reaching the Earth’s surface for a long time. Temperatures will drop, and farming will become impossible.
Moderate scenarios spoke of a “nuclear fall”: a short-term 2-4 °C drop in temperature. The most pessimistic ones predicted a new ice age with the almost inevitable extinction of humanity.
However, the concept of a “nuclear winter” is now being challenged. The calculations of catastrophic cooling did not take into account many compensating factors — from the greenhouse effect to the reduced ability of soot-covered ice to reflect sunlight.
In addition, even a significant cooling after a hypothetical nuclear war would not wipe out all of humanity: part of the population would survive, eventually repopulating the planet.
Significant cooling after a hypothetical nuclear war would not lead to humanity’s demise
A computer simulation of the consequences of a conflict between the United States and Russia showed that Moscow, St. Petersburg, Krasnodar, and Yekaterinburg would face a 20-25°C drop in average summer temperatures. Moscow’s winters would become on average 10 degrees colder, and Krasnodar’s 15 degrees colder. The minimal climate requirement for agriculture — a vegetation period of 50-75 days — would remain available only in Krasnodar Krai. In some regions, the amount of precipitation would decrease between four- and tenfold. Similar disasters would affect the entire Northern Hemisphere, resulting in global famine. The thinning of the ozone layer would expose the Earth’s surface to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation, leading to a 40% surge in the incidence of skin cancer. The effect would last about 10 years — until the soot particles gradually settle down.
Where will the missiles go?
What would be the likely objects of interest in a nuclear conflict between Russia and the U.S.? Targets for nuclear weapons are classified, but in the case of the United States, operational plans are known to envision several attack scenarios that prioritize targets as follows: enemy infrastructure for weapons of mass destruction, military installations, military and political leadership, and auxiliary military infrastructure.
In the past, the Americans planned to target economic and industrial centers (a 1956 map with publicized targets is available here), and Russia, as far as we can tell, still keeps its nuclear weapons aimed at European and North American urban agglomerations.
Computer simulations usually use the premise of strikes on major cities and economic centers. Available simulations of an exchange of strikes between NATO member states and Russia suggest that at least 85 million people would be killed or injured in the first 45 minutes.
How great is the threat of nuclear war?
Scientific and expert estimates of the probability of the combat use of nuclear weapons give a maximum value of 2.21% in annual terms. The likelihood of a nuclear war with high casualties or a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Russia is even lower. Nevertheless, for a child born now, the estimated probability of experiencing a nuclear catastrophe during their lifetime is quite high from a purely statistical standpoint — though scientists argue as to whether quantitative and qualitative methods apply to the problem of assessing the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. In other words, these estimates are highly tentative and uninformative.
Since 1945, the world has been on the brink of nuclear war several times. The most dangerous incidents occurred in 1983, not during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
The main reassuring factor is the inexorable decline in the world’s nuclear arsenal: from a peak of 70,374 warheads in 1986, it has been reduced to 12,121 today.
On Jan. 3, 2022, the five permanent member states of the UN Security Council that possess the largest nuclear arsenals issued a joint statement:
“We declare that in a nuclear war there would be no winners and it must never be fought. Given that the use of nuclear weapons would have far-reaching consequences, we reaffirm that these weapons — as long as they remain in existence — must serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war.”
Less than two months later, Russian troops invaded Ukraine, and once his blitzkrieg failed, President Vladimir Putin began blackmailing Kyiv’s Western allies with the threat of a nuclear strike.
Back in 2020, the famous Doomsday Clock — a symbolic countdown before the nuclear apocalypse — was moved to 23:58:20, or 100 seconds to midnight (the hands were left at the same mark in 2021 and 2022). In 2023, the hand was moved to 90 seconds to midnight, reflecting the highest risk of a global catastrophe since U.S. researchers from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists began counting in 1947.
Following Russia’s full-scale attack on Ukraine, the authors of the project released an update to their assessment in which they reiterated that the possible escalation of a conventional conflict into nuclear war poses a major threat to world peace and security.
What should you do in the event of a nuclear explosion near you?
The best thing, of course, is to get as far away as possible from a place where nuclear explosions may occur. The best bets for finding a safe haven are Antarctica and Easter Island in the Pacific (1), South America and Australia (2), or Iceland and Canada (3). Russia is likely to be relatively safe in remote areas of Siberia.
Russia will likely be safest in remote areas of Siberia
If an explosion does occur nearby, you must take shelter in the basement of a concrete building. You will probably have at least 10 minutes to reach it before full exposure to nuclear fallout occurs. You will have to stay there for at least 24 hours, and then act based on the instructions of the relevant authorities. Most likely, after 48 hours, the radiation levels in your surrounding area will drop to acceptable levels.
Of course, it is a good idea to prepare a first aid kit, a set of essential items, and a supply of food and water. The list of things you need to survive the first few hours and days of a nuclear apocalypse varies, but it generally boils down to the following:
Bottled water
Foods with long shelf lives
Batteries
Flashlights or lamps
A radio
Basic medicines
A set of tools
Camping equipment
IDs
Sleeping bags
Personal hygiene items
Pen and paper
You can expand the list to cover your specific needs, or follow available guides — but we sincerely hope you never have to use any of these items for the purpose of living through the end of the world as we know it.
Subscribed
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
TODAY’S NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS, Monday, (11/25/2024) (Note: Saturday and Sunday’s is also Posted.)
Don’t Tell Me! Next Up: 3:00 PM All Things Considered. 0:00. 0:00. Wait … nuclear doctrine, effectively lowering the threshold for its use of nuclear …
The demonstration of the passive cooldown system, which took place on September 17th, showcases the reactor’s ability to safely shut down and cool off …
Governments in Canada, the U.S. and abroad and some companies are all eyeing nuclear … “But I think the other thing that is becoming clear is the role …
See New York Times story for image description and credits
LLAW’s NUCLEAR NEWS & THE IMPACT ON TOMORROW
Is this the ‘shot across the proverbial bow’ from Putin’s Russia? Or is it just another threat, only this time with destructive ‘bells and whistles’ rather than simply harsh words and political doctrines? Whatever it is, there is no way to concede nor acquiesce to the ultimate purpose of this warning, given that it is intended for not only Ukraine, but the entire free world, particularly including the United States and other NATO countries.
Russia probably believes that this nuclear capable missile carrying conventional weapons of mass destruction may be enough to cause the ‘free world’ countries to discontinue their political and military support of Ukraine, which would mean Russia would easily win the war and rule over Ukraine with an iron fist so to speak. But more than that, I believe that Russia is pretty sure that the U.S. will bow out of military support for Ukraine as soon as Donald Trump takes office, allowing Putin to rule over Ukraine by default rather than using either conventional or nuclear weapons to seek the ‘spoils of war’ over Ukraine without extending the present war.
But the question is, do we walk away from Ukraine’s Democracy, or would the next Russian war target be pointed directly at the United States unless Trump hands over Ukraine as he has been wont to do since before Putin’s re-invasion after Trump lost the previous presidential election, allowing the U.S. to continue Ukraine war support. Trump would most likely “give” Ukraine back to Russia, as he apparently wanted to do before while he was still President, in order to avoid Putin’s direct conflict with Ukraine at the time, but that didn’t happen of course when he lost the previous election to Joe Biden. ~llaw
With Use of New Missile, Russia Sends a Threatening Message to the West
The intermediate-range missile did not carry nuclear weapons, but it is part of a strategic arsenal that is capable of delivering them.
Ukrainian soldiers in eastern Ukraine last week.Credit…Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
President Vladimir V. Putin escalated a tense showdown with the West on Thursday, saying that Russia had launched a new intermediate-range ballistic missile at Ukraine in response to Ukraine’s recent use of American and British weapons to strike deeper into Russia.
In what appeared to be an ominous threat against Ukraine’s western allies, Mr. Putin also asserted that Russia had the right to strike the military facilities of countries “that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities.”
His warning came hours after Russia’s military fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile at Ukraine that Western officials and analysts said was meant to instill fear in Kyiv and the West. Though the missile carried only conventional warheads, using it signaled that Russia could strike with nuclear weapons if it chooses.
“The regional conflict in Ukraine, previously provoked by the West, has acquired elements of a global character,” Mr. Putin said in a rare address to the nation. “We are developing intermediate- and shorter-range missiles as a response to U.S. plans to produce and deploy intermediate- and shorter-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.”
Mr. Putin has frequently wielded the threat of nuclear weapons to try to keep the West off balance and stem the flow of support to Ukraine. But sending an intermediate-range missile with nuclear capabilities into Ukraine and brandishing the strike as a threat to the West ratcheted up tensions even further.
Sounding by turns boastful and threatening, Mr. Putin called Thursday’s missile strike a successful “test” of a new intermediate-range ballistic missile called the Oreshnik. And he made clear that the attack on Ukraine was in response to a recent decision by the Biden Administration to grant Ukraine permission to use American-made ATACMS ballistic missiles to hit targets inside Russia.
Ukraine used ATACMS and the British Storm Shadow missile against Russia for the first time this week, Ukrainian and Western officials said.
Since Mr. Putin ordered his troops to invade Ukraine in February 2022 — and Ukraine’s western allies began supplying Kyiv with weapons and other support — both Russia and the West have taken pains to avoid a direct confrontation that all sides agreed could lead to a disastrous military conflict, and possibly nuclear war.
But as the war in Ukraine approaches the end of its third year, the guardrails preventing such a confrontation appear to be under strain like never before.
“This is an escalation,” said Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. “I really believe the situation is very dangerous.”
In his nightly address, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said, “Putin is the only one who started this war, a completely unprovoked war, and who is doing everything to keep the war going for more than a thousand days.”
He called the missile strike “yet another proof that Russia definitely does not want peace.”
The use of an intermediate-range missile drawn from Russia’s strategic arsenal was notable, Ukrainian and Western officials said. The target inside Ukraine was well within the range of the conventional weapons that Moscow has routinely used throughout the war.
But this time, Russia launched a longer-range missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads that is mainly intended as nuclear deterrence; that choice, the officials and military analysts said, signals a warning aimed at striking fear into Kyiv and its allies.
Fabian Rene Hoffmann, a weapons expert at the University of Oslo, said that from a Russian perspective, “what they would like to tell us today is that ‘Look, last night’s strike was nonnuclear in payload, but, you know, if whatever you do continues, the next strike might be with a nuclear warhead.’”
There was initially debate on Thursday over exactly what Russia fired at Ukraine. Ukraine’s air force along with Mr. Zelensky initially claimed it was an intercontinental ballistic missile, a weapon capable of hitting targets thousands of miles away, including in the United States. Ukrainian officials said the missile struck a military facility in the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro, though the extent of the damage was not immediately clear.
Senior U.S. officials and a Ukrainian official, however, said the weapon appeared to be an intermediate-range ballistic missile, not an ICBM.
Dimitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said that under protocol, Russia was not required to notify the American side in advance of the missile launch because the Oreshnik is not an intercontinental missile. But an automatic notification to the U.S. was triggered 30 minutes before the launch, Mr. Peskov told Tass, the Russian state media outlet.
The U.S. Department of Defense confirmed that it received that warning.
In a statement on Thursday, the National Security Council in the U.S. said that Russia launched what it called “an experimental medium-range ballistic missile against Ukraine.” The statement said Russia likely had “only a handful” of these missiles and had likely used it to try to “intimidate Ukraine and its supporters.”
The Ukrainian Air Force said the missile was launched from the Russian region of Astrakhan. Ivan Kyrychevskyi, a military analyst with Defense Express, a Ukrainian consulting agency, said the launch area suggested it was fired from a truck based at the Kapustin Yar training range — a Cold War-era testing ground for Soviet ballistic missiles, strategic bombers and other weaponry, underscoring the threat intended with the launch.
Ukraine has no radars capable of detecting such missiles in flight through the upper atmosphere, nor does it have air defense systems capable of shooting them down, Mr. Kyrychevskyi said. “Our Western partners might have seen this launch before us,” he said.
Analysts said the name Mr. Putin gave for the new weapon, Oreshnik, appeared new, but that the weapon itself was likely not much different from known versions of Russian intermediate-range ballistic missiles.
Although other Russian missiles that have been launched into Ukraine can also carry nuclear weapons — like the Iskander and the Kh-101 — what makes the intermediate-range missile alarming, in addition to its range, is its ability to fire multiple nuclear warheads when it re-enters the earth’s atmosphere, said Tom Karako, director of the missile defense project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
That makes it difficult, if not nearly impossible, to intercept them. The missiles are also large and can fly far, high and fast, reaching hypersonic speed.
It represents “a nuclear saber-rattling for both Ukraine and Europe itself,” Mr. Karako said. “It’s a pretty sharp signal.”
Roman Kostenko, the chairman of the defense and intelligence committee in Ukraine’s Parliament, said that Thursday’s attack would not prompt Ukraine to alter how it is fighting the war, including striking back at targets in Russia in self-defense.
But Ukraine halted its nuclear missile production after gaining independence in 1991, and now, Col. Kostenko said, “we have nothing to answer to this class of weapons.”
If there was any doubt about Russia’s intent, Mr. Putin laid out the threat explicitly.
“We have always preferred — and are still ready — to resolve all contentious issues by peaceful means,” he said. “But we are also ready for any development. If anyone still doubts this, it is in vain. There will always be a response.”
On top of everything else, Russian and Western officials have sparred over who is to blame for the recent spate of escalation. While the Kremlin blames Washington for granting Ukraine permission to strike Russian targets with Western weapons, the White House has said Russia’s own actions brought about the decision, specifically citing Russian’s decision to invite thousands of North Korean troops to help dislodge a Ukrainian occupation of part of Russia’s Kursk region.
Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Thursday that “the escalation at every turn, at every step, is coming from Russia.”
She repeated the White House’s position that the decision to bring North Korean troops into the conflict was the important escalatory action, and that changes in policy about U.S. weapons were not. “This is their aggression: not Ukraine’s, not ours,” she said.
In Dnipro, at the site of Thursday’s missile strike, officials were still evaluating the extent of the damage of the missile strikes, though it did not appear to be extensive. The city’s mayor, Borys Filatov, wrote on Facebook that an explosion had broken windows at a rehabilitation center for disabled people.
The Ukrainian government does not provide damage assessments of attacks directed at strategic military assets, but local residents suggested the PA Pivdenmash Machine-Building Plant was struck. The precise work that now takes place at the plant is a closely guarded secret, but its history as a missile producer in the Cold War is well known, making it a frequent target for attacks throughout the war.
Michael Schwirtz, Aritz Parra, Oleg Matsnev Maria Varenikova, Nataliia Novosolova and Liubov Sholudko contributed reporting.
Marc Santora has been reporting from Ukraine since the beginning of the war with Russia. He was previously based in London as an international news editor focused on breaking news events and earlier the bureau chief for East and Central Europe, based in Warsaw. He has also reported extensively from Iraq and Africa. More about Marc Santora
Lara Jakes, based in Rome, reports on diplomatic and military efforts by the West to support Ukraine in its war with Russia. She has been a journalist for nearly 30 years. More about Lara Jakes
Valerie Hopkins covers the war in Ukraine and how the conflict is changing Russia, Ukraine, Europe and the United States. She is based in Moscow. More about Valerie Hopkins
Eric Schmitt is a national security correspondent for The Times, focusing on U.S. military affairs and counterterrorism issues overseas, topics he has reported on for more than three decades. More about Eric Schmitt
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
… nuclear power plants to generate electricity. “Public perception is now at an all-time high, and has been stable for the last few years,” Wagner said.Nuclear Power
After all, this was the week the Kremlin leader lowered the threshold for the use of Russian nuclear weapons. It was the week the US and UK crossed ( …
Russia-Ukraine war sees another ‘dangerous cycle’ as threats escalate … Putin’s latest threat is a declaration that the US is risking nuclear war with …
Active volcano near cities: Yellowstone Caldera. Close. There’s only … The Yellowstone Caldera is a supervolcano and a volcanic caldera that …
IAEA Weekly News
22 November 2024
See the top stories from this week’s IAEA Board of Governors meeting in Vienna, and as COP29 draws to a close in Baku, explore our COP29 Blog for in-depth coverage of the role of nuclear science and technology in the global climate discussions.
Kai Mykkänen, Minister of Climate and the Environment of Finland and the co-chair of the IAEA’s upcoming 2024 Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Science, Technology and Applications and the Technical Cooperation Programme, discusses the conference’s significance and how nuclear science and technology helps provide solutions to global challenges. Read more →
Heads of UN agencies endorsed South-South cooperation and inter-agency collaboration as critical for climate action at a High-level Forum on this topic hosted by China at the 29th UN Climate Change Conference (COP29). The IAEA joined them in promoting South-South cooperation as a valuable mechanism to help achieve climate action goals in an equitable manner. Read more →
The International Atomic Energy Agency has handed over two new, fully equipped ambulances to Ukraine this week, providing vital medical support to the people working at its nuclear facilities. Read more →
The IAEA Director General has briefed the Board of Governors on his high-level meetings in Tehran last week, describing his discussions with the new government as constructive. Nevertheless, he pointed out, there were ongoing concerns. Read more →
Nuclear power is in the spotlight at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Azerbaijan, where both countries and industries presented plans to deploy the carbon-free energy technology, building on the historic consensus to accelerate its use that emerged from last year’s climate summit. Read more →
The IAEA Director General has been granted a major honour – the Henry DeWolf Smyth Nuclear Statesman Award – for outstanding service in developing and guiding the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Read more →
The entire free world seems to be terribly worried about the return of Donald Trump as the United States’ president — except the American voters (with probable Russian help) who miraculously and ignorantly returned him to the office despite the fact that he is a habitual liar, mentally ill, a convicted criminal, a political authoritarian, and just about every other condemning human characteristic one can think of. This international leeriness is all about his association with other nuclear armed countries and what he might, even unintentionally as unstable as he is, take an unimageable giant step into creating a nuclear war all by himself.
We have at least some of Trump’s nuclear war pronouncements on good authority from other leaders of other countries during his previous presidency who have said as much — that he will be a ‘first strike’ nuclear president in the event of an already looming threat of nuclear war. We are now in a political and military “can’t win” situation involving Ukraine, Britain, and the U.S., as well as NATO, and Russia along with their potential new ally North Korea. Putin has indicated that Russia may retaliate against Ukraine with nuclear weapons by Christmas (see the “Economic Times” article in the Nuclear War Threats category TODAY’S NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS, just below.
The threats of nuclear war is the most critical of all issues on planet Earth these days, and we are bringing the wrong president and his woefully inept and authoritarian administration that lack enough common sense, intellect, empathy, and the need for a a united human world of peace in order to survive as a species, yet both we and our allies are relying on a thing called “deterrence”, which invites nuclear armed countries to spend capital we don’t have to “make believe” our nuclear endowed neighbors wil be afraid of each other enough to avoid a nuclear holocaust while bankrupting our own and their countries, too. An awakened common sense tells us all that this “deterrence” thing cannot go on forever, and it’s obvious that we are already at the breaking point, and the breaking point means all it will take is for one of them, or us, to fire the first nuclear missile. ~llaw
How might Russia respond to UK and US letting Ukraine hit it with their missiles?
Moscow has rattled its nuclear sabres, but experts say an increase in hybrid, ‘grey zone’ warfare is more likely
How the Guardian will stand up to four more years of Donald Trump
We’ve just witnessed an extraordinary moment in the history of the United States. Throughout the tumultuous years of the first Trump presidency we never minimised or normalised the threat of his authoritarianism, and we treated his lies as a genuine danger to democracy, a threat that found its expression on 6 January 2021.
With Trump months away from taking office again – with dramatic implications for Ukraine and the Middle East, US democracy, reproductive rights, inequality and our collective environmental future – it’s time for us to redouble our efforts to hold the president-elect and those who surround him to account.
It’s going to be an enormous challenge. And we need your help.
Trump is a direct threat to the freedom of the press. He has, for years, stirred up hatred against reporters, calling them an “enemy of the people”. He has referred to legitimate journalism as “fake news” and joked about members of the media being shot. Project 2025, the blueprint for a second Trump presidency, includes plans to make it easier to seize journalists’ emails and phone records.
We will stand up to these threats, but it will take brave, well-funded independent journalism. It will take reporting that can’t be leaned upon by a billionaire owner terrified of retribution from the White House.
If you can, please consider supporting us just once, or better yet, support us every month with a little more. Thank you.
Katharine Viner
Editor-in-chief, the Guardian
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
That resolution would condemn Tehran’s lack of responsiveness and call for creating a comprehensive report of all open questions about Iran’s nuclear …
Michael Poland, Scientist-in-Charge at the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, told DailyMail.com that even parts of surrounding states would be ‘in bad …
TerraPower celebrated the start of construction on the Natrium reactor demonstration project during a groundbreaking ceremony in Wyoming on June 10, 2024. The beginning of construction activities marked the first advanced nuclear reactor project under construction in the Western Hemisphere. Courtesy: TerraPower
LLAW’s NUCLEAR NEWS & THE IMPACT ON TOMORROW
There was no new news today because all the top articles — except two or three about the ill-conceived rebound in nuclear energy after “all these years”, courtesy of a standout story from “Power” magazine that’s by far the best and most realistic review of the ridiculous and far-out optimism of our government, the nuclear industry, and Wall Street — were about Putin’s potential use of nuclear warfare, which dominated yesterday as well. So I’m just going to repeat what I had to say about that Putin nuclear war issue yesterday . . .
“The doctrine said any attack by a non-nuclear power supported by a nuclear power would be considered a joint attack, and that any attack by one member of a military bloc would be considered an attack by the entire alliance, it said.” (from the following Reuters’ article).
According to both Russia and the United States this has already happened when Ukraine recently fired long-range U.S. missiles with conventional warhead ATACMS into Russia for the 1st time at targets within Russia. So all we can do at the moment is speculate on what may or may not happen next.
But I do believe it is mandatory that the US/Ukraine violation resolution (if it is resolved) must happen before Trump takes office on January 20, 2025. But I suspect it will be delayed . . . ~llaw
The following powerful article is by far the best of the nuclear power stories (today and for many yesterdays, if not years) because it takes a long hard look at the reality of the obvious potential negative problems with nuclear power that the money markets and their ilk, including the nuclear/uranium business itself, seem to be ignoring or hiding away to reap some profits before the whole world of reality sets in . . . (My hat is off to Sonal Patel , the author of this article), ~llaw
Can Nuclear’s Big Recent Wins Propel a True Global Revival?
While the past year has marked stunning triumphs for nuclear energy, experts caution that high costs, regulatory bottlenecks, and the need for market alignment remain major hurdles on the path to a true nuclear renaissance.
Nuclear energy is at an inflection point. In 2023, nuclear contributed 9.2% of the world’s total power production with an installed capacity of 371.5 GWe from 413 reactors globally. While that figure still represents a relative waning—especially if compared to nuclear’s share of 18% in the late 1990s—in September 2024, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued projections that point to a dramatic sectoral revival. While the agency’s high-growth scenario is ambitious—anticipating a rapid expansion that could reach up to 890 GW by 2050—even its conservative scenario is optimistic, envisioning 458 GWe by 2050 (Figure 1). The agency pointed to several prevalent drivers. Among them are climate goals that now recognize nuclear as indispensable to achieve COP28 pledges and growing international coalitions, including from 25 nations, that will work to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. Nuclear has been championed as a key solution to counter renewable variability and climate change resilience, and address energy security amid geopolitical strain.
1. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) projects that while total power capacity could increase by about 12% by 2030 and more than double by 2050, nuclear capacity could increase 2.5 times the 2023 capacity by 2050 in the high case and by about 24% by 2050 in the low case. Courtesy: IAEA
Proceeding with urgency, several countries have already acted to bolster their goals with a slew of supportive policy measures designed to manage financial and operational risks. In tandem, the nuclear industry’s long-missing market signals are growing more pronounced, riding on soaring energy demand projections from economic growth, urbanization, electrification, and lately, the scramble from tech giants to secure power for their energy-intensive data centers, and for semiconductor and chip fabrication.
Still, while the momentum is stunning for the industry that has long lagged, industry experts caution these are still early signals of progress. “Overall, we still have more than half of our generation coming from fossil fuels. To solve that problem, based on our modeling, we’re going to need at least 150 GWe of nuclear in addition to all the other energy sources—and by 2050, if that’s our net-zero goal,” said Adam Stein, director of Nuclear Energy Innovation at thinktank the Breakthrough Institute. “The question is, is it people trying to get things moving forward incrementally, or is it actually the start of the ramp up? Is it going to be a renaissance, or is it going to be just a lot of money thrown at a couple of little projects? That’s what we still have to see.”
Economic Realities, Financing, and Emerging Business Models
As Stein explained to POWER, a critical vision of the nuclear industry must be focused on achieving large-scale, sustained growth that will have a real impact on decarbonization and energy security goals. To do that, the industry must forge a pathway that can achieve “scale”—a massive gigawatt-level buildout and orders of magnitude beyond that. And to do that, it must overcome a lengthy list of formidable, persistent technical, regulatory, and institutional challenges.
2. Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) values are shown here calculated using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) model, which includes such things as Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Loan Programs Office (LPO) benefits, and production tax credit (PTC) and investment tax credit (ITC) incentives. Even assuming Vogtle 3 and 4 costs inflated to 2024, “the next AP1000s could be under $100/MWh with IRA benefits and closer to ~$60/MWh with cost reductions,” suggests the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). MACRS = modified accelerated cost recovery system. Source: Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear (DOE, September 2024)
Perhaps the most longstanding is that nuclear plants are exceptionally capital-intensive. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), estimated overnight capital costs—without financing costs, as if a plant were to be built literally “overnight”—vary significantly, depending on region and reactor type. Vogtle 3 and 4, AP1000 reactors brought online over the past 18 months (and the first new U.S. reactors built in more than three decades), presented an overnight cost of $11,000/MWh. However, the cost of Vogtle Units 3 and 4 was adversely impacted by “construction with an incomplete design, an immature supply chain, and an untrained workforce,” the DOE notes. The AP1000 design is now complete, there is now supply chain infrastructure, and Vogtle trained more than 30,000 workers, which should all help to bring costs down on future builds (Figure 2).
The World Nuclear Association (WNA) also underscores that cost escalation has been historically stark. In France, construction costs increased from €1,170/kWe in the 1970s for Fessenheim to €8,100/kWe in 2022 for the EPR at Flamanville, owing largely to the decline in reactor build rates and heightened safety standards. At the same time, however, series builds demonstrated in successful projects in China, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates have revealed the cost-cutting potential of standardization and steady workflows, it says. “The economics of nuclear power are much improved if a number of standard models can be ordered. The economies of series production then come into effect, and the fixed overhead costs of design and permitting involved in the supply of nuclear grade components and systems can be spread over a large number of units,” it notes.
“Possibly of equal importance is the reduction of construction and permitting risk that is associated with building numerous standardized units—which allows greater predictability and reduced timelines for the development of additional plants.” In addition, capital costs—the total cost to build a plant and bring it to operation—can be significantly reduced by learning-through-replication, scaling up unit capacities, simplifying designs, maintaining consistent licensing, and minimizing construction delays to accelerate revenue generation, it says.
Financing costs—typically comprising interest accruing during construction and for project debt and equity remuneration—of a project’s costs can also pose a steep (up to 80%) impact on total investment cost. In deregulated markets, these costs can be exacerbated by revenue uncertainty, as wholesale prices can fluctuate significantly. But here, too, new models are emerging that use frameworks like special purpose vehicles (SPV) and regulated asset bases (RAB) to share risk and provide more predictable returns. RAB models proposed for the UK’s Sizewell C project, for example, permit revenue collection during the construction phase, offsetting financing costs.
In the U.S., the DOE’s Loan Programs Office (LPO) is implementing an “equity-first” approach that reduces early high-risk exposure by requiring developers to raise private investment before accessing federal loans. The method, as a senior DOE official explained, ensures projects are “financially sound and commercially validated” before committing taxpayer dollars.
A landmark example is the $1.52 billion loan guarantee finalized in September 2024 to support Holtec International’s restart of the 800-MW Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan. The transaction marked the first loan guarantee through the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) program, established by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Section 1706, which allows projects to leverage existing infrastructure. The framework notably also requires developers to achieve significant milestones upfront, reducing the likelihood of cost overruns or construction delays, he said.
Managing Substantial New Risks
Still, according to Stephen Greene, senior fellow at the Nuclear Innovation Alliance (NIA), while the government’s support will be crucial in jumpstarting nuclear development, over the long run—and to sustain the envisioned buildout—the nuclear industry will need to reconfigure its existing development model to mitigate financial risks that make independent development of new nuclear more challenging than other types of energy projects. At the crux of the issue is that the nuclear industry has historically proven to be notoriously slow, expensive, and risk-averse, and it requires considerable nuclear project development skillsets.
Along with large capital requirements, new nuclear projects require longer pre-construction timeframes with greater costs. And, due to the “limited commercial maturity of advanced nuclear technologies and the dearth of recent construction experience, supply chains, and construction capabilities are limited, and it is more difficult to allocate risks efficiently for a nuclear energy project today than it is for projects using more established energy technologies,” Greene explained.
“In our view, risk management is the key issue hindering the development of nuclear energy projects today. A key question is: Which parties have the motivation and the resources to take on that risk for the next few advanced nuclear energy projects?” Greene said. “Integrated electric utilities have discussed nuclear energy as an attractive option, but so far, U.S. utilities have not proposed specific projects despite recent forecasts of more rapid electricity demand growth than we’ve experienced in decades. Some users have expressed interest in purchasing power from nuclear energy projects, but most have indicated they want to be customers of such projects, not developers,” he said.
Meanwhile, “The reality is that for early-stage nuclear projects, project developers are not in a position to absorb the potential cost risk of early-stage nuclear energy,” Greene added. The entities involved—such as constructors, major equipment suppliers, and even some technology developers—don’t yet have the experience with new nuclear energy technologies to make them comfortable taking on those risks, and many don’t have the financial resources to backstop that risk. Green suggested more subsidies, like an investment tax credit, may be necessary to help offset risks and enable more private investment.
3. TerraPower celebrated the start of construction on the Natrium reactor demonstration project during a groundbreaking ceremony in Wyoming on June 10, 2024. The beginning of construction activities marked the first advanced nuclear reactor project under construction in the Western Hemisphere. Courtesy: TerraPower
To address the challenge, some advanced technology developers—traditionally tasked with maturing their technologies—have stepped up to spearhead project development. TerraPower, for example, is developing its first Natrium power plant, Kemmerer 1, in Wyoming (Figure 3), a fast reactor and energy storage hybrid project that is furnished with up to $2 billion in authorized funding under the DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) and set to begin commercial operation in the early 2030s. The company, which has so far secured offtake from PacifiCorp and contracted Bechtel as its engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor, has adopted a strategy of “equity-only funding for first-of-a-kind (FOAK) projects” to avoid debt burdens and manage financial exposure, said Jeff Miller, TerraPower’s director of Business Development.
Oklo, meanwhile, is spearheading a “full value chain” approach, which involves managing the design, build, and operation of smaller reactors through power purchase agreements (PPAs)—essentially allowing Oklo to maintain greater control over costs and risk management. “Instead of starting with large, capital-intensive projects, we opted to begin with smaller reactors” based on Oklo’s liquid metal sodium fast reactor design, said Craig Bealmear, Oklo’s Chief Financial Officer. “We have found a sweet spot at the 15-MW to 50-MW reactor size, with the potential for 100 MW as we scale. This approach makes sense as our reactors are more accessible to a wide range of customers and markets, and drastically reduce upfront capital requirements, which helps accelerate deployment,” he said.
The Prospect of Leveraging Existing Coal or Nuclear Sites
As one specific potentially impactful approach to slash risks, governments around the world are facilitating the utilization of existing energy infrastructure. Site repurposing projects typically exhibit community acceptance and have regulatory background. The ability to utilize such things as existing transmission connections can help minimize costs and reduce timelines associated with new builds. Challenges exist, of course, which include environmental and physical constraints—for example, population density, seismic risks, water availability, and local policies could pose problems.
In an August 2024 report, the DOE suggested the nation’s 54 existing nuclear plant sites (which already host 94 commercial reactors) and 11 retired nuclear sites could backfit 60 GWe or 54 large-scale nuclear plants (sized like AP1000s, at 1,117-MWe), and 95 GWe from 158 smaller reactors, sized at 600 MWe. A larger array of 145 coal power sites, meanwhile, could host another 128 GWe to 174 GWe. The report identified at least 27 coal sites retired before 2020 in 16 states that could be used as new sites for new nuclear plants.
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has separately suggested at least 18 sites are promising for near-term AP1000 deployment, and at least nine sites qualify if state policy is considered. These include the restarts already announced at Palisades and Three Mile Island Unit 1, as well as at Duane Arnold (where a feasibility study is underway) and V.C. Summer (where an AP1000 project was abandoned).
For now, however, the focus on new builds appears firmly entrenched on small modular reactor (SMR) prospects, Stein has suggested. “First, unless there are already AP1000 reactors on the site, as is the case at the Vogtle site in Georgia, no one is going to build a single large reactor. Single-unit sites simply cost more than multi-unit sites and won’t reach the low-cost estimates that have created the recent wave of enthusiasm for large LWRs [light-water reactors],” he said.
SMRs are also more feasible in liberalized markets, given they demand lower initial capital and shorter deployment timelines, aligning with market demand and corporate needs for urgent, firm power solutions. “SMRs offer the potential for lowering the absolute dollar risk bands for construction,” the DOE underscores. “As an example, a $4 billion SMR with a 50% cost overrun would result in a completed FOAK cost of $6 billion; a $10 billion reactor with the same 50% cost overrun will result in a completed FOAK cost of $15 billion.”
New Market Entrants, Industrial Demand, and Expanding Applications
As several nuclear entities have told POWER, the most forceful impetus currently driving nuclear forward is market signal. Developers are fielding substantial interest from tech giants looking to urgently feed data centers (see sidebar “Data Centers—Nuclear Energy’s New Frontier?”), but also from customers who want to secure reliable, clean, and affordable power for other industrial and commercial uses.
Data Centers—Nuclear Energy’s New Frontier?
Major deals recently unveiled by tech giants with nuclear developers over the past few months underscore considerable market signal from the energy-hungry digital sector. In September 2024, Microsoft and Constellation Energy committed $1.6 billion to restart the Unit 1 reactor of the shuttered Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania by 2028, now known as the Crane Clean Energy Center (Figure 4). Then, in October, Google signed a Master Plant Development Agreement to facilitate the development of a 500-MW fleet of Kairos Power molten salt nuclear reactors by 2035 to power Google’s data centers. That same week, Amazon said it would back the deployment of 5 GW of new X-energy small modular reactors projects, starting with an initial four-unit 320-MWe Xe-100 plant with regional utility Energy Northwest in central Washington. It also signed an agreement with Dominion Energy to explore a 300-MW SMR near Virginia’s North Anna Power Station.
4. Constellation in September signed a landmark 20-year agreement with Microsoft to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1 in Pennsylvania as the Crane Clean Energy Center, named after former Exelon CEO Chris Crane. The project will add 835 MW of carbon-free power to the grid, with operations expected by 2028. Courtesy: Constellation
These deals could just be the beginning. McKinsey reports that data center power demand in the U.S. could rise by 400 TWh by 2030, with a 23% compound annual growth rate. The consulting group also boldly predicts that while data centers may soon represent 30%–40% of all new demand, “hyperscalers” may be best poised to take on nuclear’s higher initial risks, given the long-term payoff in stability and low-carbon output.
Still, challenges loom large. Nuclear’s high capital costs and decade-long build timelines make rapid scale-up difficult, McKinsey warns. In addition, nuclear’s cost competitiveness with other energy options is uncertain, and while modular reactors promise efficiency gains, achieving economies of scale remains elusive. Transmission and interconnection delays pose another substantial barrier. Even co-located, islanded systems for data centers may face grid integration complexities.
In November, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejected a request to increase the amount of power that Talen Energy’s Susquehanna nuclear plant can dispatch to an Amazon data center campus. While the order has posed new uncertainties about the regulatory landscape for behind-the-meter configurations, specifically for large co-located data center loads, legal experts generally suggest they expect that FERC will use a recent co-location technical conference to initiate a generic rulemaking proceeding, an action that could provide more clarity on behind-the-meter arrangements.
For now, key nuclear players remain mostly optimistic. Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez, during an earnings call in November, underscored that the 2–1 FERC ruling “is not the final word” on co-location. “Co-location in competitive markets remains one of the best ways for the U.S. to quickly build the large data centers that are necessary to lead on AI [artificial intelligence]. As Chairman Phillips explained, our nation’s entire economy and national security is at stake if we do not lead in AI.”
Dominguez said Constellation, the nation’s largest nuclear generator, remained bullish on data center prospects. “We are seeing a wave of interest from customers who are interested in these opportunities and in our relicensing, and we are making significant progress on contracting. The intensity of our negotiations with hyperscalers and others keeps going up and up,” he said.
But he also noted data center demand was just one part of the value proposition to restart the Crane Clean Energy Center (formerly Three Mile Island)—which he hailed as a “powerful symbol of the rebirth of nuclear energy,” he said. “Second, it confirms our thesis that the most valuable energy commodity in the world today is clean and reliable electricity. And third, it underscores the growing demand for 24/7 clean energy, driven by the data economy, onshoring, and electrification. All of these macro points benefit our owners.” Given optimism for the market, Constellation is also exploring at least 1 GW of additional nuclear generation through uprates, Dominguez said.
5. Oklo Inc. announced on Nov. 7, 2024, that the DOE and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) have completed the environmental compliance process addressing the DOE requirements for site characterization at Oklo’s first commercial advanced fission power plant site at INL. This image shows Oklo’s preferred site, with INL’s Materials and Fuels Complex, and Transient Reactor Test Facility, visible in the background. Courtesy: Oklo
Oklo’s Bealmar, for example, noted his company’s partnerships (Figure 5) had expanded rapidly from 700 MW since May 2024, when it completed a business combination with AltC Acquisition Corp., to include 1.4-GW in deals across multiple sectors—including with data center providers Equinix and Wyoming Hyperscale, and Texas-based oil and gas company Diamondback Energy. “I think the biggest question we all get is, ‘Can you move faster?’ And I think we’re all starting to get questions of ‘What can we do to help you move faster,’ which I think is a great place for the industry to be,” he said.
So far, 65 operational reactors around the world already supply heat for non-electric applications, including district heating, desalination, and industrial heat applications. Interest is now cropping up, in Finland, for example, to explore nuclear power to replace aging heat plants. Finnish nuclear startup Steady Energy’s LDR-50, a 50-MW pressurized water reactor, has garnered substantial interest for its design, which produces heat of up to 150C for district heating, industrial steam production, and desalination projects.
Cogeneration also poses a growth opportunity. Industry is already exploring value in high-temperature applications, particularly for processes requiring heat above 500C, such as hydrogen production, and the oil and gas sector. In China, nuclear-driven cogeneration projects that combine electricity and process heat for industrial complexes have reportedly yielded “significant cost savings in fuel and emissions reduction,” the IAEA notes. Haiyang nuclear plant, which began providing district heat in 2020 to replace coal-fired boilers, is now also planning a large-scale desalination plant coupled to its AP1000 reactors.
Stein told POWER that the nuclear industry’s potential to supply industrial process heat may be its biggest overlooked value proposition. “If we just talk about low-grade heat for industrial processes in the U.S., that’s the thermal output of 70 AP1000s—“a massive market that is almost entirely served by fossil fuels right now,” he underscored. The thermal energy application has broader implications for decarbonization goals beyond just electricity generation, he noted, and it should more prominently be part of nuclear’s “bigger picture,” he said.
The Risk of Regulatory Bottlenecks
Finally, and with emphasis, sources told POWER, the most insidious risk facing nuclear are outdated and stringent regulatory practices that delay its potential. Despite Congressional pressure to modernize, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has just begun to grapple with its new mission that requires licensing and regulation in a manner that does not “unnecessarily limit” the use of nuclear energy “or the benefits it could provide for society.” Although the NRC “seems to have finally got the message from Congress” with the ADVANCE Act, “the challenge is actual implementation,” Stein noted (see sidebar “A Compelling Case for the Rapid, High-Volume Deployment of Microreactors”).
A Compelling Case for the Rapid, High-Volume Deployment of Microreactors
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a North American trade group that works to shape nuclear policy, is fiercely pushing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to drastically streamline its regulatory process so that it will be supportive of an emerging brand of microreactors that could be potentially deployed in less than six months.
“Rapid high-volume deployable reactors are unlike current operating nuclear plants or other advanced small modular reactors,” wrote Marcus Nichol, executive director, NEI New Nuclear, in a recent concept paper. More akin to non-power or research reactors than commercial reactors, these 2-MWth to 50-MWth technologies are “very small in size and source term,” he explained. They enable innovative business models by allowing for extensive factory construction, appealing to customers who only want to use energy (not sell it). In addition, they reduce costs enough so that vendors can build reactors pre-emptively without specific customer orders, require minimal onsite construction, and, in some cases, can be transported fully assembled. The reactors are envisioned for remote deployment for a range of power and heat applications, including oil and gas production and development, mining and extraction, and chemical processing.
At least one company—Shepherd Power—is actively exploring the concept and has called for “sufficient clarity by the end of 2024 on a licensing pathway supporting scale microreactor deployment.” In a letter to the NRC, the subsidiary owned by oil and gas technology firm NOV said the imperative is driven by market demand. “In the Permian Basin alone, electrical demand is expected to jump from 4 GWe in 2022 to over 17 GWe in 2032, driven by electrification of oil and gas operations to reduce emissions. We led an in-depth evaluation, with participation from several major oil and gas companies, that identified a substantial number of potential upstream power and heat applications that can be served by microreactors, including water treatment, hydrogen production, and enhanced carbon capture and storage. These applications were selected because microreactors present the best technical option for achieving their decarbonization, and aggregated together, imply a very large and immediate domestic market,” it said.
NEI’s 180-day rapid-deployment concept essentially envisions five stages after site selection: mobilization and site characterization (1 month); site preparation (1 month); site assembly (2 months); delivery and emplacement (1 month); and commissioning and startup (1 month). The concept of deployment, however, is “dependent upon several milestones in the NRC process for the site license,” Nichols noted. “Currently, the NRC licensing process is complex, including many steps and features that would not be necessary for a rapid high-volume deployable reactor.”
NEI proposes a more pragmatic and efficient regulatory approach that would align with the ADVANCE Act’s Section 208, which explicitly calls for the NRC to establish a regulatory framework for microreactors. For one, it advocates for a specialized framework tailored to microreactors. NEI stresses that because these smaller reactors operate with fundamentally different source terms and simpler operational models than large-scale plants, they would need minimized safety concerns and oversight. In addition, NEI urges the NRC to drastically streamline the licensing process to aim for essentially a four-month review process: a month each for application preparation and engagement, an acceptance review, two months for the NRC’s verification review, and one for its final approval.
The NEI report stresses the need for NRC regulatory costs to remain below 1% of total project costs to keep microreactor deployment economically viable, supporting rapid, high-volume deployment models without compromising safety. By minimizing overhead, this approach ensures nuclear technologies can compete in cost-sensitive, remote, and industrial applications, it says.
In October, the NRC published a proposed rule for a Part 53 licensing pathway, an alternative to two existing licensing options (focused heavily on LWR-specific requirements), which seeks to establish risk-informed, performance-based techniques. Part 53, designed to accommodate multiple technologies, must be finalized by 2027.
“It does have a lot of things that potentially could help expedite the licensing process for advanced reactors and really just make the process more efficient without sacrificing the NRC’s independent review of safety,” said Patrick White, NIA research director. However, he said the bigger question remains: “When will this or how can this rule potentially bring benefits to applicants and have it be kind of a more predictable, efficient, and effective process?” Congress actually recognized “hesitancy to use the new rule,” so as part of the ADVANCE Act, it included a set of licensing prizes that will provide a 100% fee refund for any applicant that makes it through certain NRC licensing pathways, he noted. “The federal government is willing to essentially pay those costs for you to be that first mover,” he said.
Stein suggested many more opportunities exist for efficiency at the regulatory body, particularly for its “risk-averse regulatory paradigm,” which he said is stricter than what Congress has said is “ample margin of safety.” Its overly conservative approach “slows the process down without providing meaningful additional safety to the public,” he said.
As just one critical measure, the NRC must move away from treating each application as “entirely new” and instead “reference more easily from past decisions,” Stein said. Meanwhile, further complicating matters is that the agency is losing experienced senior staff to industry, including “change makers” in its middle ranks. That “hollowing out of the middle” is further hampering the NRC’s ability to streamline its processes as the institutional knowledge is being drained, he said.
Ultimately, for all its recent successes, alignment across the nuclear sector is emerging as the industry’s next crucial imperative. As White observed, nuclear deployment relies heavily on “lining up all the different stakeholders”—from developers, operators, and end users to state and federal officials and, crucially, a strong regulatory body, he said. For years, the industry struggled with one or more of these pieces missing, he said. “We still have work to do, but I think we’ve really got that process started.”
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
In all, the new doctrine says that Russia will use nuclear weapons whenever the president decides to do so. It also contains a laundry list of things …
All Things Considered · Destination Out · Fresh … nuclear strike. … Both the news of possible Ukrainian strikes and Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine …
