Top Left Link Buttons
  • English

Power & Energy

Category Archives

Russian UN Energy Forum in Run-up to Glasgow COP26 – Look to Nuclear, Hydro

July 15, 2021 (EIRNS)–In preparation for the Glasgow UN Climate conference – COP26 (Oct. 31-Nov. 12, 2021), the Mission of the Russian Federation to the UN held a virtual side event, titled, “Low Emissions Solutions in Energy and Beyond: Partnering with Businesses for a Sustainable Recovery.” The event was opened by Russia’s Minister of Economic Development, Maxim Reshetnikov, and included speakers from Russia, China, Japan, Australia, and the UK. The Schiller Institute attended the event, which had 60 participants.

Russia was represented by speakers from the IAEA and from Rosatom, as well as by the Minister of Economic Development. Minister Reshetnikov stated that Russia’s goal is to reduce emissions to less than 70% of Russia’s 1990 emission levels by developing all technologies, especially nuclear and hydropower. He appealed: “Don’t discriminate against any technology,” saying that this must be done in a cost-effective way and one that does not impede economic development.

Speaking as the Deputy Director General, and chief of the Nuclear Energy Dept. of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Dr. Mikhail Chudakov made a series of sharp points addressing the importance of nuclear energy from the vantage point of urgent global energy deficits: 1) globally, 700 million people are still without access to electricity, and demand is growing, 2) nuclear is the most dense form of all energy sources — we need a level playing field for all low-carbon electricity sources, including access to financing, and 3) “Don’t forget about fusion:” Many companies are now investing over $2 billion in fusion research, which will yield a clean and unlimited new source of energy. Dr. Chudakov said that the promotion of nuclear power as a key part of the solution to the emissions question will be the message taken by the IAEA to COP26. Kirill Komarov of Russia’s Rosatom, documented in many dimensions the power of nuclear energy as a friend of the environment. For instance, in measuring Life Cycle Emissions (measured in gCO2eq/ kWh) we see the following: Solar – 48, Hydro – 24, Nuclear – 12, Wind – 11

Chinese Charge d’ Affaires at the China Mission to the UN, Amb. Dai Bing urged a “people-centered approach” to energy policy, which can create a “beautiful ecological environment.” Dame Barbara Woodward OBE, the UK Permanent Representative to the UN — who was apparently added to the program at the last minute — gave an arrogant speech attacking both Russia and the use of coal, demanding that nations adhere to the dictates of the Paris Climate agreement “4 to 5 times faster” — which will be the UK’s demand at COP26 in Glasgow. Corporate representatives from Brazil and Australia promoted biofuels, hydrogen production, wind, and solar panels.

The Schiller Institute’s Paul Gallagher posed this question to the panel of speakers: “Nuclear power plants have the highest power density per area and time of operation and are extremely reliable — but, they take a long time to build relative to other sources. Can this be solved through factory production of modular nuclear power units; how quickly can this become a reality?” Dr. Chudakov responded that Belarus had built a nuclear plant in only six years. So, the process can be expedited. “We need a clear policy of support of nuclear power from governments, governmental credits for infrastructure” so as to advance reactors and reduce construction time. “It’s easy to scale up when you produce the same unit. That’s why SMRs are the future. They need governmental support.” Russia and China are building nuclear plants because there is government support.

Russian scientists have a distinguished history of promoting — on the world stage — the universal use of nuclear power. Physicist, Academician Yevgeny Velikhov, then-head of the prestigious Kurchatov Institute, speaking at the Arctic Energy Summit in Alaska in October, 2007 addressed the vast “energy gap” between world supply and world demand for electricity. Dr. Velikhov was clear, then: sticking with the current dependence on oil, gas, and so forth will not work — there must be nuclear power.


Unprecedented Support for Nuclear Power in Sweden

A new survey has shown unprecedented support for nuclear power in Sweden, this is despite a referendum in 1980 mandating an eventual total exit and closure of nuclear power stations. A new study by pollster Novus revealed that 46 percent of respondents agreed that nuclear power should be expanded if necessary, which is up from only 28 percent in 2017. While 31 percent believe that while it should not necessarily be expanded, existing nuclear power plants should remain in use. By contrast only 14 percent wanted to phase out nuclear power. Support for Nuclear power is higher then support for wind and solar combined.

“That answer is higher than the other two together. This has never happened before”, Mattias Lantz, a researcher at Uppsala University and chairman of the Analysis Group, said according to an article in Sputniknews.

It also showed that almost six out of ten still think that nuclear power can be a means of meeting climate goals.

Men, the elderly, and Moderate or Sweden Democrat voters tend to be the most positive about new reactors. By contrast, women, those with lower incomes, and Social Democrat voters tend to be in favor of decommissioning nuclear power. Even more interesting is the trend that younger people are now tending to be more positive about nuclear power despite, or maybe because of, the antics of juvenile delinquent Greta Thunberg.

Lantz attributed the change to the surfacing of shortcomings of the power grid systems in southern Sweden as well as the fact that the liberal-conservative Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the national-conservative Sweden Democrats have raised the need for nuclear power.


Gabon Made To Mortgage Its Future for `Carbon Credits’

The otherwise nondescript nation of Gabon made history last week as the first African country to “get paid” to preserve its rainforest. At the end of an arduous, four-year process of “conforming,” on June 24, the Norwegian government distributed a $17 million payment, with the fantastic sum of $150 million still in the wind. The payment was allocated under the UN-initiated Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI). While not technically a part of UN Climate czar Mark Carney’s over-hyped “climate offset” scheme, this deal provides a window into the process, and will likely serve as a model.

In June of 2017, under the CAFI program, the nation of Gabon signed a Letter of Intent with the nation of Norway, and the Multi Partner Trust Fund of the United Nations Development Program, under which Gabon would agree to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% below the 2005 level, as well as agree to perform a series of “milestones”– which ultimately saw Gabon creating 13 “national parks”– effectively locking up the vast majority of its land area, prohibiting logging and other access to resources. Only at the end of the long process would Gabon get paid. That final “millstone” was passed in 2019, with an announcement at the Climate Action Summit in New York. For all its efforts and sacrifices, Gabon would receive $150 million over the next 10 years (assuming continued compliance). Last Thursday’s $17 million payment was the first evidence that its years of sacrifice would amount to anything at all.

First established in 2015, the CAFI brought together European governments, specifically Norway, France, Germany and the UK, along with six central African (rainforest) countries, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, the Central Africa republic, Cameroon, and both “Congos.” The “rationale” behind CAFI was the reduction of carbon emissions. The year before had seen Norway sign a deal promising $150 million to Liberia, a model which CAFI then extended across the mid-section of the entire continent. In 2019, timed with the signing of Gabon in New York, a similar deal worth $65 million — between France and the Republic of Congo — was announced in Paris. There are likely similar efforts afoot in South America and the Indo-Pacific, the other “rainforest regions” of the world, which need to be investigated.

However, the idea that Africa needs to {reduce} its carbon emissions is farcical on the face of it, something which is slowly dawning on African leaders, as more and more evidence of this type of exploitation emerges. Africa’s total greenhouse gas emissions are 4% of the global total, yet CAFI used that global mantra to convince these six LNI (Low National Income) countries to mortgage their future with the promise of mere pennies.

The other hidden force at play here is the elusive “carbon market.” Norway, which now “owns” the Gabonese forests for the next ten years, now has an amount of carbon offset equivalent to 3X the national output of the entire United Kingdom. (The Gabon deal is celebrated for “setting a floor price of carbon” at $10 per certified ton.) Could Norway, for example– at some date in the future– put this “asset” (or a derivative based on it) up for sale, to be bought by a carbon-belching airline or steel foundry? If they did, and got a higher price for it, would Gabon see any of the profits?

These are the questions currently weighing down the heads of Mark Carney and friends in Davos, Switzerland. The weight may yet draw them down to Hell.


Iraq Plans Eight Nuclear Reactors, Looks to Russia for Help

Iraq is seeking to build eight nuclear power plants by 2030, to eliminate its endemically bad electricity footprint, a product of destruction by the Children of Satan — most recently of George Bush’s 2003 Iraq War destruction, but going as far back as the 1981 bombing of the (almost complete) Osirak nuclear reactor by Israel. The oil-rich country, OPEC’s second-largest producer, is seeking to go nuclear partly under pressure from global green de-carbonizers, who are trying to raze all oil production from the planet.


According to {Bloomberg News}, who interviewed Kamal Hussain Latif, chairman of the Iraqi Radioactive Sources Regulatory Authority, “Iraq is seeking to build eight reactors capable of producing about 11 gigawatts, [and seeking] funding from prospective partners for the $40 billion plan and pay back the costs over 20 years.” Iraq has been in contact with both Russian and South Korean officials about a deal, they say.


Detailing the sorry state of electricity in Iraq, {Bloomberg} notes that Iraq currently has 18.4 GW capacity, which includes 1.2 GW imported from Iran. They estimate “normal” demand to be 28 GW — exceeding 30 GW in the “torrid” summer months. By 2030, Iraq’s demand is expected to rise to 42 GW, so the 11GW nuclear that they are seeking is right in step with demand.

The bright future with nuclear fission and fusion power will be discussed at the upcoming Schiller Institute conference.

For the Common Good of all People, not the Rules Benefiting the Few!

International Schiller Institute/ICLC online conference, June 26/ 27, 2021

RSVP today →


Second “Dialogue on Climate” Webinar in Italy

The second “Dialogue on Climate” webinar took place in Italy yesterday, with professors Franco Battaglia and Franco Prodi as speakers. Prof. Battaglia is a teacher of physics and chemistry at the Modena University, while prof. Prodi, brother of Italy’s former Prime minister Romano, is teacher of Physics of the Atmosphere at the University of Bologna. 

Prof. Battaglia demonstrated in a conclusive way that all forecasts of the IPCC have been wrong. “Nobody can deny that human activity has produced CO2, but this is not the cause of climate change”, he said. We are in the end phase of a mini-glacial era, and global warming has already occurred in the past, when there was no anthropogenic CO2 production. 

Solar and wind energy will never be able to replace other energy sources, which today represent 80% of the energy mix. The insanity of renewables can be shown in Italy, where ca. 100 billion euro have been invested for photovoltaic parks that produce 2.6 GW of power, whereas one nuclear power plant would produce 3 Gw and would cost one tenth of it! Battaglia revealed that when he was advisor to Environment minister Altero Matteoli, the latter asked him whether he should sign the Kyoto protocol. Don’t sign it, Battaglia told him. Nobel prize winner Carlo Rubbia also told me so, Matteoli confessed – but eventually signed the Protocol. 

Prof. Prodi went into a long and detailed explanation on how the formation of clouds affects the climate. This is a complex and articulated system, but the IPCC focuses only on some aspects, neglecting some very influential factors. 

During the Q&A period, former minister Carlo Giovanardi asked why scientists who argue against the IPCC are excluded from the public debate. 

Prof. Alberto Prestininzi, who moderated the event, answered that “there is a direction. When economic leaders get together…. if the EU decides that one trillion Euro should go to decarbonization”. Prof. Renato Ricci, honorary chairman of the Italian Physics Society, commented that it is “big finance” behind the so-called climate emergency. 

Claudio Celani from EIR intervened in support of prof. Ricci explaining that the climate emergency is a pretext to create a new financial bubble in the attempt to save the bankrupt financial system. The origin of climate activism and environmentalism is neo malthusianism, and answering Sen. Giovanardi, Celani said that politicians have a responsibility for having accepted a decades-long slide into the current regime. 

Celani’s remarks were backed by prof. Mario Giaccio, an economist, who said that he agrees about neo malthusianism and went into a description on how liquidity has moved into energy assets, creating the bubble. However, he concluded with the pessimistic remark that you cannot do anything against it because they are too strong! 

Prof. Prodi intervened saying that he has been ostracized by media because of his “negationist” views, and the situation in the scientific community is “more rotten than you think”, almost as rotten as in the financial system. 

There will be a “Climate Dialogues” Webinar every other week between now and October.

The science of climate change is not settled, and much of what is presented is not based on science at all. Leading scientists with the integrity and courage to buck dangerous “popular” dogma will discuss so-called manmade climate change, and the most-advanced science including the galactic science of astronomical-scale oscillations at the upcoming Schiller Institute/ICLC conference. The suicidal trend in some European countries to stick with anti-nuclear attitudes will also be discussed.

For the Common Good of all People, not the Rules Benefiting the Few!

International Schiller Institute/ICLC online conference, June 26/ 27, 2021

RSVP today →


Page 4 of 4First...234